Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Update for Ten Planning Areas; Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets; Technical Correction, 71776-71789 [05-23502]
Download as PDF
71776
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This
rule does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) The
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
et seq., as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a
rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a
rule report, which includes a copy of
the rule, to each House of the Congress
and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under
section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by January 30, 2006. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this rule for the
State regulation
*
Title 7, Chapter 27.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: November 8, 2005.
Alan J. Steinberg,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
I
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart FF—New Jersey
2. Section 52.1570 is amended by
adding new paragraph (c)(78) to read as
follows:
I
State effective date
*
*
*
*
Subchapter 23, Prevention of Air Pollution
From Architectural Coatings.
*
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
*
[FR Doc. 05–23418 Filed 11–29–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
*
*
*
July 20, 2004 ............. November 30, 2005 ...
*
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; California; Carbon
Monoxide Maintenance Plan Update for
Ten Planning Areas; Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets; Technical
Correction
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
§ 52.1605 EPA—approved New Jersey
regulations.
Fmt 4700
Comments
*
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
Variances or exemptions approved by the
State pursuant to Subchapter 23.3(j) become applicable only if approved by EPA
as a SIP revision.
*
[R09–OAR–2005–CA–0010; FRL–8002–4]
19:03 Nov 29, 2005
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(78) Revisions to the State
Implementation Plan submitted on July
28, 2004 by the State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
that establishes an expanded control
program for architectural coatings.
(i) Incorporation by reference:
(A) Regulation Subchapter 23 of Title
7, Chapter 27 of the New Jersey
Administrative Code, entitled
‘‘Prevention of Air Pollution From
Architectural Coatings,’’ adopted on
May 21, 2004 and effective on July 20,
2004.
(ii) Additional material:
(A) Letter from State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
dated July 28, 2004, requesting EPA
approval of a revision to the Ozone SIP
which contains amendments to the
Subchapter 23 ‘‘Prevention of Air
Pollution From Architectural Coatings.’’
*
*
*
*
*
I 3. Section 52.1605 is amended by
revising the entry under Title 7, Chapter
27 for Subchapter 23 in the table to read
as follows:
*
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Identification of plan.
*
EPA approved date
*
*
§ 52.1570
*
*
SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final
action to approve a State
Implementation Plan revision,
submitted by the California Air
Resources Board on November 8, 2004,
that includes the 2004 Revision to the
California State Implementation Plan
for Carbon Monoxide, Updated
Maintenance Plan for Ten Federal
Planning Areas. This revision will
provide a ten-year update to the carbon
monoxide maintenance plan, as well as
replace existing and establish new
carbon monoxide motor vehicle
emissions budgets for the purposes of
determining transportation conformity,
for the following ten areas: Bakersfield
Metropolitan Area, Chico Urbanized
Area, Fresno Urbanized Area, Lake
E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM
30NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Tahoe North Shore Area, Lake Tahoe
South Shore Area, Modesto Urbanized
Area, Sacramento Urbanized Area, San
Diego Area, San Francisco-Oakland-San
Jose Area, and Stockton Urbanized Area.
EPA is taking this action pursuant to
those provisions of the Clean Air Act
that obligate the agency to take action
on submittals of revisions to State
implementation plans. The intended
effect of this action is to fulfill the
requirement under the Clean Air Act for
a State to submit a subsequent
maintenance plan that provides for
continued maintenance of a National
Ambient Air Quality Standard within
former nonattainment areas within eight
years of redesignation of those areas to
attainment. In connection with the
motor vehicle emissions budgets, we are
denying a request by the California Air
Resources Board for EPA to limit the
duration of our approval of the budgets.
Also, in this action, EPA is notifying
the public that we have found that the
carbon monoxide motor vehicle
emissions budgets contained in the
submitted maintenance plan are
adequate for conformity purposes. As a
result of this finding, the various
metropolitan planning organizations in
the ten planning areas and the U.S.
Department of Transportation must use
the CO motor vehicle emissions budgets
from the submitted maintenance plan
for future conformity determinations.
Lastly, EPA is correcting certain errors
made in our 1998 final rule approving
California’s redesignation request for
these ten planning areas.
DATES: This rule is effective on January
30, 2006 without further notice, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by
December 30, 2005. If we receive such
comments, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to
notify the public that this direct final
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number R09-OAR–
2005-CA–0010, by one of the following
methods:
1. Agency Web site: https://
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. EPA prefers
receiving comments through this
electronic public docket and comment
system. Follow the on-line instructions
to submit comments.
2. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions.
3. E-mail: tiktinsky.toby@epa.gov.
4. Mail or deliver: Toby Tiktinsky
(Air–2), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:03 Nov 29, 2005
Jkt 208001
change and may be made available
online at https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/
, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through the
agency Web site, eRulemaking portal or
e-mail. The agency Web site and
eRulemaking portal are ‘‘anonymous
access’’ systems, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send e-mail
directly to EPA, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the public comment.
If EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may
not be able to consider your comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub and in
hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some
information may be publicly available
only at the hard copy location (e.g.,
copyrighted material), and some may
not be publicly available in either
location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Toby Tiktinsky, EPA Region IX, (415)
947–4223, tiktinsky.toby@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, the terms
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to U.S.
EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. What Action Is EPA Taking?
B. Why Is California Submitting This SIP
Revision?
C. What Process Did California Use To
Develop This Plan?
D. Ambient Carbon Monoxide
Concentrations
E. What Are Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets (MVEBs)?
II. How Are We Evaluating This Submittal?
III. EPA’s Evaluation of 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan
A. Attainment Inventory
B. Maintenance Demonstration
C. Monitoring Network and Verification of
Continued Attainment
D. Contingency Provisions
E. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
IV. Adequacy Finding for Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets
V. Technical Correction
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71777
VI. EPA’s Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. What Action Is EPA Taking?
Under section 110(k)(3) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), we are
approving a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (ARB)
on November 8, 2004. This SIP revision
consists of the 2004 Revision to the
California State Implementation Plan
for Carbon Monoxide, Updated
Maintenance Plan for Ten Federal
Planning Areas (‘‘2004 CO Maintenance
Plan’’), ARB Board Resolution 04–20
adopting the 2004 CO Maintenance
Plan, and related public process
documentation. The 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan will provide a tenyear update to the carbon monoxide
(CO) maintenance plan, as well as
replace existing and establish new
motor vehicle emissions budgets
(MVEBs), for the following ten areas,
referred to herein collectively as the
‘‘ten planning areas’’: Bakersfield
Metropolitan Area, Chico Urbanized
Area, Fresno Urbanized Area, Lake
Tahoe North Shore Area, Lake Tahoe
South Shore Area, Modesto Urbanized
Area, Sacramento Urbanized Area, San
Diego Area, San Francisco-Oakland-San
Jose Area, and Stockton Urbanized Area.
ARB’s November 8, 2004 SIP submittal
was deemed complete by operation of
law six months after receipt under
section 110(k)(1)(B).
In connection with the MVEBs, we are
denying a request by the California Air
Resources Board for EPA to limit the
duration of our approval of the budgets.
Also, in this notice, EPA is notifying the
public that we have found that the
MVEBs contained in the submitted
maintenance plan are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes.
Lastly, we are also correcting,
pursuant to section 110(k)(6) of the Act,
certain errors that we made in our 1998
final rule approving California’s
redesignation request for these ten
planning areas.
B. Why Is California Submitting This
SIP Revision?
All ten planning areas that are the
subject of this rulemaking were
originally designated as nonattainment
areas for the CO National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 1978.
See 43 FR 8962 (March 3, 1978).
Because all of the ten planning areas
remained ‘‘nonattainment’’ for the CO
NAAQS at the time of enactment of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,
their nonattainment designations were
carried forward by operation of law
E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM
30NOR1
71778
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Act, as
amended in 1990. Based on their design
values in 1990, eight of the ten areas
were further classified as ‘‘moderate’’
nonattainment. The air quality in two of
the areas (Lake Tahoe North Shore Area
and Bakersfield Metropolitan Area),
however, was near the standard, but not
below it. Thus, these two areas were not
further classified, but retained their
‘‘nonattainment’’ designations. [See 56
FR 56694, at 56723–56726 (November 6,
1991).]
Once an area achieves the NAAQS,
and the area demonstrates in a
maintenance plan that it can continue to
meet the air quality standards, the State
can request that EPA redesignate the
area to attainment. Before an area can be
redesignated to attainment, EPA must
ensure the maintenance plan meets the
criteria established in section 175A of
the CAA. The plan must demonstrate
continued attainment of the applicable
NAAQS for at least ten years after the
Administrator approves a redesignation
to attainment.
In 1996, California submitted the
Final Carbon Monoxide Redesignation
Request and Maintenance Plan for Ten
Federal Planning Areas (‘‘1996 CO
Maintenance Plan’’). The 1996 CO
Maintenance Plan demonstrated
continued maintenance of the CO
NAAQS in the ten planning areas
through 2010. On March 31, 1998, EPA
approved the 1996 CO Maintenance
Plan as a revision to the California SIP
and redesignated the ten areas to
attainment effective June 1, 1998 (63 FR
15305).
One of the control measures that the
1996 CO Maintenance Plan relies upon
is the State’s wintertime oxygenated
gasoline requirement. Due to concerns
over the effects of the predominant
oxygenate used to comply with the
wintertime gasoline requirements,
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), on
water quality, the ARB rescinded the
wintertime oxygenated gasoline
requirement as it relates to the ten
planning areas covered by the 1996 CO
Maintenance Plan. In November 1998,
ARB amended the 1996 CO
Maintenance Plan to remove the CO
emissions reductions benefits associated
with the wintertime oxygenated
gasoline requirement, and submitted the
revised maintenance plan, Revision to
1996 Carbon Monoxide Maintenance
Plan for 10 Federal Planning Areas
(‘‘1998 CO Maintenance Plan’’), as a SIP
revision to EPA in December 1998. In
the 1998 CO Maintenance Plan, ARB
estimates that repeal of the wintertime
oxygenated gasoline requirement results
in an increase in CO emissions in the
ten planning areas of approximately 9%
but concludes that the CO NAAQS
would still be maintained through 2010.
We have taken no action on the 1998 CO
Maintenance Plan SIP revision and
consider the more recent submittal, i.e.,
the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan SIP
submittal, to supersede this earlier
submittal.
Section 175A(b) of the Act requires
the State to submit, eight years after
redesignation of any area to attainment,
an additional revision of the SIP that
provides for maintenance of the
applicable NAAQS for the 10-year
period following the initial maintenance
period. ARB’s current submission
updates the maintenance plan to cover
the remainder of the twenty year
maintenance period (1998 to 2018)
required by the CAA and is intended to
satisfy the section 175A(b) requirement
for a subsequent maintenance plan.
C. What Process Did California Use To
Develop This Plan?
ARB held a public hearing on the
2004 CO Maintenance Plan on July 22,
2004 and adopted the plan on the same
day. Thirty days prior to that date, ARB
arranged for publication of notices of
the July 22, 2004 public hearing in
major newspapers that circulate in each
of the ten planning areas. By letter dated
November 8, 2004, ARB submitted the
2004 CO Maintenance Plan for approval
by EPA as a revision to the California
SIP. As enclosures to the November 8,
2004 letter, ARB provided evidence of
adoption (ARB resolution 04–20), the
necessary legal authority under State
law to adopt and implement the plan,
copies of public hearing notices in
which ARB was to address the contents
of the plan revision, and minutes from
the July 22, 2004 public hearing
produced by a certified court reporting
service. ARB is the Governor’s designee
for submitting SIP revisions.
D. Ambient Carbon Monoxide
Concentrations
The 2004 CO Maintenance Plan
provides a summary of ambient CO
concentration data collected within the
ten planning areas since the areas
attained the CO NAAQS. The data,
which is summarized in Table 1 below,
indicate that the CO NAAQS has been
maintained in the ten planning areas
since the mid-1990s, that design values
are currently well below the CO
NAAQS, and that, with one exception,
there is a continuing downward trend in
the CO design values in these areas.
TABLE 1.—DESIGN VALUES FOR THE 8-HOUR CO NAAQS IN CALIFORNIA
[Parts per million or ppm]
CO maintenance area
Attainment period
Bakersfield ...............................................................................................................................
Chico ........................................................................................................................................
Fresno ......................................................................................................................................
Lake Tahoe North Shore .........................................................................................................
Lake Tahoe South Shore ........................................................................................................
Modesto ...................................................................................................................................
Sacramento ..............................................................................................................................
San Diego ................................................................................................................................
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose ...........................................................................................
Stockton ...................................................................................................................................
1992–1994—6.1
1993–1995—5.4
1993–1995—9.1
1993–1994—3.8
1993–1994—7.4
1993–1994—6.6
1993–1995—9.1
1993–1994—7.0
1993–1994—7.2
1993–1994—7.5
1995
6.1
5.0
8.5
3.2
6.8
6.3
8.0
7.4
7.5
7.5
2000
5.2
4.0
7.6
0.9
4.3
6.3
6.2
4.9
6.9
6.3
2003
2.5
3.4
4.3
N/A
6.5
3.7
4.2
4.1
4.9
3.2
Source: ARB, 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, page 5.
NOTE: The 8-hour CO design value is computed by first finding the maximum and second maximum (non-overlapping) 8-hour values at each
monitoring site for each year of a given two-year period. Then the higher of the two ‘‘second high’’ values is used as the design value for a given
monitoring site, and the highest design value among the various CO monitoring sites represents the CO design value for the given area.
N/A = Not Available.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:03 Nov 29, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM
30NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
E. What Are Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets (MVEBs)?
In developing plans for improving or
maintaining air quality under the CAA,
regions must estimate the total
emissions from motor vehicles. These
estimates act as a budget or ceiling for
emissions from motor vehicles. EPA
evaluates these budgets to ensure that
current and future motor vehicle
emissions will not prevent a region from
attaining or maintaining the NAAQS.
Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs) must ensure that transportation
plans and programs do not lead to
increases in motor vehicle emissions
that would exceed the established
budgets and, consequently, hinder a
region from attaining or maintaining the
NAAQS.
II. How Are We Evaluating This
Submittal?
We are evaluating this SIP revision
submittal under sections 110 and 175A
of the Act.
Section 110(k) of the Act requires EPA
to approve, disapprove, or conditionally
approve all SIP submittals found or
deemed to be complete. As noted above,
ARB’s SIP submittal containing the 2004
CO Maintenance Plan was deemed
complete by operation of law.
Section 110(l) of the Act requires that
each SIP revision submitted by a State
be adopted by such State after
reasonable notice and public hearing.
As noted above, ARB adopted the 2004
CO Maintenance Plan on July 22, 2004
after having provided for reasonable
notice and a public hearing. We find the
public process ARB used to develop and
adopt this SIP revision to be acceptable
under section 110(l) of the Act.
Section 110(l) also states that EPA
shall not approve a SIP revision if the
revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. We evaluate the
potential for this SIP revision to
interfere with continued maintenance in
Section III.B (‘‘Maintenance
Demonstration’’) of this notice in the
context of approving the wintertime
oxygenated gasoline requirement as a
contingency measure.
Section 175A(b) of the Act requires
the State to submit, eight years after
redesignation of any area to attainment,
an additional revision of the SIP that
provides for maintenance of the
applicable NAAQS for the 10-year
period following the initial maintenance
period. Section 175A(d) requires that
plan revisions submitted under section
175A contain such contingency
provisions as EPA deems necessary to
assure that the State will promptly
correct any violation of the standard
which occurs after the redesignation of
the area as an attainment area. Such
contingency provisions must include a
requirement that the State will
implement all measures with respect to
the control of the air pollutant
concerned which were contained in the
SIP for the area before redesignation of
the area as an attainment area.
Maintenance plans submitted under
section 175A of the Act should include
the following core provisions: An
attainment inventory, a maintenance
demonstration, commitment to continue
operating an appropriate monitoring
network, commitment to verify
continued attainment, and a
contingency plan. See EPA Policy
Memorandum, ‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Ares
to Attainment,’’ John Calcagni, Director,
Air Quality Management Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, to Regional Air Division
Directors, September 4, 1992 (‘‘Calcagni
71779
memo’’). Our evaluation of the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan is provided in the
following section of this notice.
III. EPA’s Evaluation of 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan
A. Attainment Inventory
For maintenance plans, a State should
develop a comprehensive, accurate
inventory of actual emissions for an
attainment year to identify the level of
emissions which is sufficient to
maintain the NAAQS. A State should
develop these inventories consistent
with EPA’s most recent guidance on
emissions inventory development.
The 1996 CO Maintenance Plan
included attainment inventories for
each of the ten planning areas. As part
of the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, ARB
updated the emissions inventories for
year 1993, which was the common
attainment year for all ten planning
areas in the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan,
to reflect better calculation methods and
emissions factors. ARB also developed a
CO emissions inventory for a more
recent attainment year, 2003. Table 2
presents a summary of the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan’s emissions estimates
for these two attainment years (1993 and
2003) as well as the plan’s updated
projections of emissions for 2010 (the
horizon or out-year of the 1996 CO
Maintenance Plan) and a projection of
emissions for 2018 (the out-year of the
2004 CO Maintenance Plan). Table 2
shows wintertime seasonal CO
emissions decreasing steadily over the
next thirteen years. ARB attributes the
continuing decline in emissions, despite
growth in population and vehicle miles
traveled (VMT), to the benefits of
increasingly tighter emissions standards
for new engines, fuel requirements, and
turnover of the vehicle fleet to loweremitting models.
TABLE 2.—TOTAL CO EMISSIONS IN EACH MAINTENANCE AREA
[Winter seasonal emissions in tons per day]
CO maintenance area
1993
Bakersfield .......................................................................................................................................................
Chico ................................................................................................................................................................
Fresno ..............................................................................................................................................................
Lake Tahoe North Shore Area ........................................................................................................................
Lake Tahoe South Shore Area ........................................................................................................................
Modesto ...........................................................................................................................................................
Sacramento ......................................................................................................................................................
San Diego ........................................................................................................................................................
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose ...................................................................................................................
Stockton ...........................................................................................................................................................
2003
2010
2018
478
232
627
25
61
331
1,125
1,889
4,254
433
298
164
400
19
49
206
658
1,101
2,645
258
234
134
302
16
45
151
487
829
1,716
188
191
113
244
14
43
120
388
643
1,322
153
Source: ARB, 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, page 8.
Appendix B of the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan shows emission
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:03 Nov 29, 2005
Jkt 208001
inventories by major source category.
ARB prepared the motor-vehicle portion
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
of the emissions inventories by using
the current version of California’s motor
E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM
30NOR1
71780
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
vehicle emission factor model
EMFAC2002, version 2.2. EPA approved
the use of EMFAC2002 to estimate
motor vehicle emissions on April 1,
2003 (see 68 FR 15720). The emissions
estimates in table 2 above for inventory
years 2003, 2010, and 2018 do not
include the emissions benefit from the
(now rescinded) wintertime oxygenated
gasoline requirement but do include the
emissions benefit from the measures
that ARB adopted as contingency
measures in the 1996 CO Maintenance
Plan. These measures, which are listed
on page 12 of the 2004 CO Maintenance
Plan, include improvements to the
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/
M) program, on-board diagnostics
systems testing for newer vehicles,
California cleaner burning gasoline, offhighway recreational vehicle standards,
tighter lawn and garden equipment
standards, and tighter low-emission
vehicle and clean fuel regulations.
EPA has reviewed the emissions
inventories included in the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan and the related
emissions inventory preparation
documentation and concludes that the
inventories are comprehensive and
reflect acceptable methods and
emissions factors and that the
inventories present reasonably accurate
estimates of actual and projected CO
emissions in the ten planning areas.
B. Maintenance Demonstration
Generally, a State may demonstrate
maintenance of the NAAQS by either
showing that future emissions of a
pollutant or its precursors will not
exceed the level of the attainment
inventory, or by modeling to show that
the future mix of sources and emissions
rates will not cause a violation of the
NAAQS. For areas that are required
under the Act to submit modeled
attainment demonstrations, the
maintenance demonstration should use
the same type of modeling. In areas
where modeling is not required, the
State may rely on the attainment
inventory approach. For subsequent
maintenance plans, to comply with
section 175A(b) of the Act, the State’s
maintenance demonstration must
extend 10 years after the expiration of
the 10-year maintenance period covered
by the initial maintenance plan.
In the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan,
ARB provided maintenance
demonstrations (through 2010) for nine
of the 10 areas based on the attainment
inventory approach and provided a
maintenance demonstration (through
2010) based on modeling (rollback
method) for the one area (Fresno) for
which modeling had been required for
attainment demonstration purposes
under the Act.
In the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan,
ARB updated the emissions inventories
for all ten areas (see Table 2, above). For
the nine areas for which maintenance
demonstrations are based on the
inventory approach, the updated
estimates of total CO emissions in each
area show a continuing downward trend
through 2018 (i.e., 20 years after
redesignation) and thus demonstrate
maintenance of the CO NAAQS through
the required period. ARB also updated
the maintenance demonstration for the
Fresno area, once again relying on the
rollback method to show that the CO
NAAQS would be maintained in that
area through 2018. Table 3 summarizes
the updated rollback analysis for Fresno
and shows that the design values for
Fresno are anticipated to continue to fall
well below those achieved in the 1993–
1995 attainment period.
We find the maintenance
demonstrations for the ten planning
areas in the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan
to be acceptable for the purposes of
CAA section 175A(b). Further, we find
that, based on the maintenance
demonstrations contained in the 2004
CO Maintenance Plan, the revision in
the status of one of the principal control
measures relied upon in the 1996 CO
Maintenance Plan, the wintertime
oxygenated gasoline requirement, from
‘‘active’’ status to ‘‘contingent’’ status is
approvable under section 110(l) because
it will not interfere with continued
maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the
ten planning areas.
TABLE 3.—CO ROLLBACK ANALYSIS FOR FRESNO AREA
[Winter seasonal emissions]
Fresno urbanized area
1993
All Sources of CO in the Emission Inventory (tons per day) ..................................................................
Projected Design Value for All Sources in the Inventory (in ppm) .........................................................
On-Road Motor Vehicle Portion of the CO Emission Inventory (tons per day) ......................................
Projected Design Value for On-Road Motor Vehicle Portion of the Inventory (in ppm) .........................
Vehicle Miles Traveled (in thousands) ....................................................................................................
2003
2010
2018
627
9.1
450
9.1
15,987
400
5.8
236
4.8
20,624
302
4.4
141
2.9
24,895
244
3.5
77
1.6
29,487
Source: ARB, 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, page 11.
C. Monitoring Network and Verification
of Continued Attainment
Once an area has been redesignated,
the State should continue to operate an
appropriate air quality monitoring
network, in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58, to verify the attainment status
of the area. The maintenance plan
should contain provisions for continued
operation of air quality monitors that
will provide such verification. The
maintenance plan should also indicate
how the State will track the progress of
the maintenance plan, such as by
periodically updating the emissions
inventory.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:03 Nov 29, 2005
Jkt 208001
In the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan,
ARB indicates that it intends to
continue to comply with the monitoring
criteria set forth in 40 CFR part 58, and
that it will annually review data from
the two most recent, consecutive years
in order to verify continued attainment
of the CO NAAQS. In the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan, ARB reiterates its
intent to continue to collect air quality
data and to review data on an annual
basis from the two most recent
consecutive years to verify continued
attainment of the CO NAAQS.
Based on the compilation of
information in appendix A of the 2004
CO Maintenance Plan, we note that, in
the aggregate, ten CO monitoring sites in
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the ten planning areas have closed since
redesignation of these areas to
attainment for the CO NAAQS, but 33
sites remain open with at least one CO
monitoring site continuing to operate in
each planning area, except for the Lake
Tahoe North Shore Area. The reduction
in the number of CO monitoring sites is
acceptable in light of the sharp decline
in maximum CO concentrations in each
of the ten planning areas and the need
to shift resources to address other air
quality priorities. We also believe that
the lack of a CO monitoring site in the
Lake Tahoe North Shore Area is
acceptable given the very low CO
concentrations measured there. In
addition, audits of a number of the
E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM
30NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
ambient monitoring networks in the ten
planning areas since redesignation have
found no significant problems with any
of the networks.
Under EPA’s Consolidated Emissions
Reporting Rule, published in the
Federal Register on June 10, 2002 (see
67 FR 39602), states are required to
prepare comprehensive statewide
inventories every three years. In
addition, under State law (California
Health and Safety Code Section
39607.3), ARB is required to update
emissions inventories for all areas of
California for CO as well as the other
criteria pollutants on an on-going basis.
Although not cited in the 2004
Maintenance Plan, the Federal and State
inventory update requirements suffice
to track progress of the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan.
We find ARB’s stated intention to
continue to collect air quality data and
to verify continued attainment of the CO
NAAQS to be acceptable for the
purposes of CAA section 175A(b) based
on our conclusion that ARB has
consistently operated its monitoring
networks in compliance with 40 CFR
part 58 and continues to operate an
appropriate number of CO monitoring
sites in the planning areas covered by
the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan.
D. Contingency Provisions
CAA section 175A(d) requires that
‘‘Each plan revision submitted under
this section shall contain such
contingency provisions as the
Administrator deems necessary to
assure that the State will promptly
correct any violation of the standard
which occurs after the redesignation of
the area as an attainment area. Such
provisions shall include a requirement
that the State will implement all
measures with respect to the control of
the air pollutant concerned which were
contained in the State implementation
plan for the area before redesignation of
the area as an attainment area.’’ The
following sections discuss the
contingency provisions included in the
2004 CO Maintenance Plan.
The EPA-approved 1996 CO
Maintenance Plan included seven
contingency measures: improved basic
I/M program requirements (Chico, Lake
Tahoe North Shore, Lake Tahoe South
Shore, and San Francisco-Oakland-San
Jose Areas); enhanced I/M program
requirements (Bakersfield, Fresno,
Modesto, and Sacramento Areas); onboard diagnostics systems testing
requirements in I/M programs
(Statewide); California Cleaner-Burning
Gasoline regulations (Statewide); OffHighway Recreational Vehicles
standards (Statewide); lawn and garden
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:03 Nov 29, 2005
Jkt 208001
equipment—tier II requirements
(Statewide); and low-emission vehicles
and clean fuels (post-1995) standards
(Statewide). At the time of ARB’s
adoption of the 1996 CO Maintenance
Plan, these measures had already been
adopted and were anticipated to be
implemented during the 1996 through
2001 period regardless of any triggering
event associated with high CO
concentrations. The CO emissions
reductions associated with these seven
contingency measures were not
included in the maintenance
demonstrations for the ten planning
areas and thus were surplus to the CO
emissions reductions assumed in the
1996 CO Maintenance Plan.
CAA section 211(m) establishes
particular requirements for adopting
provisions requiring the use of
oxygenated fuels in areas designated
nonattainment for the CO NAAQS and
registering design values above 9.5 ppm.
Pursuant to this section of the CAA,
ARB submitted its motor vehicle fuels
regulations, including its requirements
for wintertime oxygen content, to EPA
for approval on November 15, 1994.
Eight areas in California were required
to provide for the sale of oxygenated
gasoline during winter months under
section 211(m): Chico, Fresno, Modesto,
Sacramento, San Diego and Sacramento
MSAs, and the Los Angeles-AnaheimRiverside and San Francisco-OaklandSan Jose CSMAs. Because of the number
of carbon monoxide nonattainment
areas, however, ARB required the use of
wintertime oxygenates for the entire
State. EPA approved the State’s
wintertime oxygenated gasoline
regulations on August 21, 1995 (60 FR
43379).
California succeeded in reducing
significantly CO emissions, prompting
ARB to request that EPA redesignate the
ten planning areas to attainment and to
submit a maintenance plan (adopted by
ARB April 25, 1996) and referred to
herein as the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan
that demonstrates how the State will
continue to meet NAAQS for CO. The
1996 CO Maintenance Plan (which EPA
approved March 31, 1998 [63 FR
15305]) identified the wintertime
oxygenated gasoline requirement as one
of the principal control measures and
relied on the associated emissions
reductions to demonstrate continued
attainment.
On November 19, 1998, ARB
approved an amendment to California’s
CO maintenance plan rescinding in
most areas the wintertime oxygenated
gasoline requirement (see ARB
Resolution 98–52, November 19, 1998
included as Appendix C of the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan). Because the State
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71781
had achieved significant reductions in
CO emissions from other control
measures, the wintertime oxygenated
gasoline requirement was no longer
necessary to maintain the CO NAAQS in
the ten planning areas. The growing
concern about the risks of the widely
used oxygenate MTBE (methyl tertiary
butyl ether) also influenced ARB’s
decision to rescind the wintertime
oxygenated gasoline requirement.
Because it is highly soluble in water and
transfers to groundwater faster, farther
and more easily than other gasoline
constituents, ARB concluded that MTBE
poses a significant threat to
groundwater, surface water, and
drinking water systems. The following
year (March 26, 1999), Governor Gray
Davis signed Executive Order D–5–99
ordering the phase-out of MTBE. The
Executive Order also directed ARB to
develop new gasoline requirements that
eliminated the use of MTBE, which ARB
adopted in December 1999 (known as
Phase 3 Reformulated Gasoline
Regulations). In July 2002, ARB
amended the Phase 3 gasoline
regulations to postpone the prohibition
of the use of MTBE for one year, as
directed by a second Executive Order
issued by the Governor in March 2002.
The final deadline for eliminating
MTBE from gasoline in California was
December 31, 2003.
Because certain areas of the State
needed to rely on the benefits of
oxygenated fuels to ensure attainment
and maintenance of the CO NAAQS,
ARB retained the wintertime
oxygenated gasoline requirement in the
counties of Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura and
Imperial, but not in the ten planning
areas.
Additionally, in adopting the 1998 CO
Maintenance Plan, which revised the
1996 CO Maintenance Plan, ARB
committed to the following: ‘‘* * * the
Board directs ARB staff to review carbon
monoxide air quality data in the areas
no longer subject to the wintertime
oxygen requirement; if violations are
monitored in any of the areas, staff will
propose that appropriate action be taken
regarding reinstatement of the minimum
wintertime oxygen content in gasoline
previously contained in section 2262.5,
title 13, CCR, in the area at the
beginning of the following winter
season * * *’’ (ARB Resolution 98–52,
November 19, 1998; see page C–4 of the
2004 CO Maintenance Plan). ARB
revised the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan
to demonstrate California’s ability to
continue meeting the CO NAAQS
without the wintertime oxygenated
gasoline program and submitted the
amended plan (the ‘‘1998 CO
E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM
30NOR1
71782
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Maintenance Plan’’) to EPA for approval
on December 10, 1998. EPA has not
taken action on this submittal. The
current SIP revision submittal to EPA
supersedes the 1998 CO Maintenance
Plan SIP revision submittal, but
includes a resubmission of ARB
Resolution 98–52 and thereby continues
the State’s commitment in the 1998
submittal to reintroduce the wintertime
oxygenated gasoline requirement if
violations are monitored. This prior
commitment is referenced and reiterated
in the ARB resolution adopting the 2004
revisions to the CO maintenance plans:
‘‘* * * in Resolution 98–52, the Board
directed that ‘* * * if violations are
monitored in any of the areas, staff will
propose that appropriate action be taken
regarding reinstatement of the minimum
wintertime oxygen content in gasoline
previously contained in section 2262.5,
title 13, CCR, in the area at the
beginning of the following winter
season. * * *’ ’’ (ARB Resolution 04–20,
July 22, 2004, page 3.)
In the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan,
ARB brings forward the seven
contingency measures included in the
1996 Maintenance Plan, identifies
several additional regulatory measures
that have already been adopted and
implemented as contingency measures
(tighter emission standards for cars,
truck, buses, off-road equipment), and,
as noted above, brings forward the
commitment from the 1998
Maintenance Plan SIP revision
submittal to reinstate the wintertime
oxygenated gasoline requirement. The
CO emissions reductions associated
with the seven contingency measures
adopted as part of the 1996 CO
Maintenance Plan and the additional
contingency measures described in the
2004 CO Maintenance Plan are
accounted for in the inventories that
provide the basis for the maintenance
demonstrations for the ten planning
areas. Although we find early
implementation of contingency
measures to be acceptable (see EPA
policy memorandum ‘‘Early
Implementation of Contingency
Measures for Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,’’
from G.T. Helms to Air Branch Chiefs,
August 13, 1993), we find that the
inclusion of the CO emissions
reductions benefits from the various
contingency measures in the
maintenance demonstrations for the ten
planning areas disqualifies them from
serving as contingency measures for the
purposes of CAA section 175A(d).
However, we find that the
commitment to reinstate the wintertime
oxygenated gasoline requirement,
originally made in Resolution 98–52
and reaffirmed in Resolution 04–20, in
the event that CO violations are
monitored provides a sufficient basis for
us to determine that the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan meets the minimum
contingency requirements under section
175A(d) given the extent to which
California’s motor vehicle control
program will continue to provide CO
emissions reductions in the ten
planning areas over and above those
necessary for continued attainment of
the CO NAAQS.
E. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
Maintenance plan submittals must
specify the maximum emissions of
transportation-related CO emissions
allowed in the last year of the
maintenance period. The submittal must
also demonstrate that these emissions
levels, when considered with emissions
from all other sources, are consistent
with maintenance of the NAAQS. In
order for us to find these emissions
levels or ‘‘budgets’’ adequate and
approvable, the submittal must meet the
conformity adequacy provisions of 40
CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5), and be
approvable under all pertinent SIP
requirements.
The existing CO motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the areas
addressed in this notice derive from
California’s first maintenance plan (i.e.,
the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan), which
EPA approved March 31, 1998 (63 FR
15305). The CAA requires that the first
installment of the maintenance plan
cover at least ten years; California’s CO
maintenance plan covered twelve years:
1998 to 2010. The 1996 CO Maintenance
Plan did not specifically identify a
particular year in which the MVEBs
apply for transportation conformity
purposes. Applicable transportation
conformity regulations (40 CFR
93.118(b)(2)(i)), however, require that
‘‘Emissions must be less than or equal
to the motor vehicle emissions budget(s)
established for the last year of the
maintenance plan * * *.’’ This compels
EPA to interpret California’s first CO
maintenance plan as establishing
MVEBs for the final year of the first
maintenance period, which is 2010.
This interpretation, however, does not
preclude the State from revising the
2010 budgets.
In addition to establishing new
MVEBs for the final year of the second
maintenance period (2018), the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan also revises the
current CO MVEBs. Page 14 of the 2004
CO Maintenance Plan identifies 2003
and 2018 as budget years and states that
‘‘These emission budgets will apply to
all subsequent analysis years * * *
including: Any interim year conformity
analyses, the 2018 horizon year, and
years beyond 2018.’’ EPA requested
clarification from ARB because the
Agency was unsure whether the State
had intended to set budgets for every
year after 2003. ARB submitted a letter
on December 23, 2004 confirming ARB’s
intent to remove and entirely replace
the emissions budgets established by the
first ten year plan with new budgets for
2003 and 2018.
Because the transportation conformity
regulations (described above) require
States to demonstrate conformity to the
last year of the maintenance plan, EPA
requested further clarification from ARB
concerning the MVEBs in the submitted
2004 CO Maintenance Plan for year
2010. On May 23, 2005, ARB submitted
a letter to EPA clarifying their intent to
update the MVEBs from the first
maintenance plan by setting new, more
stringent MVEBs starting in 2003. These
MVEBs would also apply for 2010 and
2018. The letter included a table
showing the MVEBs and applicable
budget years (see Table 4).
TABLE 4.—PROPOSED ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLE CO EMISSION BUDGETS
[Winter seasonal emissions in tons per day]
Emission budget
CO maintenance area
Area included in inventory
2003
Bakersfield ........................................................................
Chico .................................................................................
Fresno ...............................................................................
Lake Tahoe North Shore ..................................................
Lake Tahoe South Shore ..................................................
Modesto ............................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:03 Nov 29, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Western Kern County .......................................................
Butte County ....................................................................
Fresno County ..................................................................
Eastern Placer County .....................................................
Eastern El Dorado County ...............................................
Stanislaus County ............................................................
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM
30NOR1
180
80
240
11
19
130
2010
180
80
240
11
19
130
2018
180
80
240
11
19
130
71783
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4.—PROPOSED ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLE CO EMISSION BUDGETS—Continued
[Winter seasonal emissions in tons per day]
Emission budget
CO maintenance area
Area included in inventory
2003
Sacramento .......................................................................
San Diego .........................................................................
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose ....................................
Stockton ............................................................................
In setting MVEBs, States generally use
motor vehicle emission inventories.
California took this approach, for
example, in the 1996 CO Maintenance
Plan. As Table 5 illustrates, motor
vehicle emissions are expected to fall to
comparatively low levels by 2018.
Sacramento County, Yolo County, Western Placer
County.
San Diego County ............................................................
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin ..................................
San Joaquin County .........................................................
California need not, however, cap
MVEBs at projected motor vehicle
emissions levels. Because overall
projected levels of emissions from all
sources (as demonstrated in Table 2) are
expected to be less than the levels
necessary to maintain the CO NAAQS,
2010
2018
420
420
420
730
1850
170
730
1850
170
730
1850
170
California has a ‘‘safety margin’’ that the
State may use to set MVEBs at a higher
level. As long as emissions from all
sources are lower than needed to
provide for continued maintenance, the
State may allocate additional emissions
to the MVEBs (see 40 CFR 93.124).
TABLE 5.—ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLE CO EMISSION INVENTORY
[Winter seasonal emissions in tons per day]
CO maintenance area
Area included in inventory
Bakersfield .................................................................
Chico .........................................................................
Fresno .......................................................................
Lake Tahoe North Shore Lake .................................
Tahoe South Shore ...................................................
Modesto .....................................................................
Sacramento ...............................................................
Western Kern County ..............................................
Butte County ............................................................
Fresno County .........................................................
Eastern Placer County .............................................
Eastern El Dorado County .......................................
Stanislaus County ....................................................
Sacramento County, Yolo County, Western Placer
County.
San Diego County ....................................................
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin ..........................
San Joaquin County ................................................
San Diego .................................................................
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose ............................
Stockton ....................................................................
1993
2003
2010
2018
347
138
450
18
32
246
857
177
75
236
10
18
126
410
112
46
141
7
13
74
244
66
23
77
4
7
42
96
1,472
3,314
326
728
1,840
162
457
979
97
249
563
55
Source: ARB, 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, page 13.
In the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan,
ARB’s proposed MVEBs (Table 4, above)
meet the safety margin test. Take, for
example, Fresno, which attained the CO
NAAQS in 1993 with a CO wintertime
emissions level of 627 tons per day. By
2018, ARB predicts that Fresno’s
emissions will be 244 tons per day of
CO (77 from motor vehicles, 167 from
all other sources) [see Table 6]. This
provides a safety margin of 383 tons per
day. By setting the MVEB for Fresno at
240 tons per day, ARB allocates some of
the safety margin (163 tons per day) to
the MVEB, while still leaving a large
margin between emissions levels from
all sources, including motor vehicles
and related safety margin (i.e., 220 tons
per day), and the emissions level that
allows for continued maintenance of the
NAAQS (627 tons per day).
TABLE 6.—EXAMPLE OF HOW ARB CAN ALLOCATE EMISSIONS TO MVEBS FOR FRESNO AREA
Fresno urbanized area
2018 emissions
Projected Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory ...............................................................................................................................
Projected Emissions from Other Sources .....................................................................................................................................
Total Projected Emissions .............................................................................................................................................................
Allowable emissions1 .....................................................................................................................................................................
Emissions available to allocate to MVEB ......................................................................................................................................
Proposed MVEB (See Table 4, above) .........................................................................................................................................
Difference b/w MVEB and Projected MV emissions .....................................................................................................................
Remaining Unallocated Safety Margin ..........................................................................................................................................
77
167
244
627
383
240
163
220
1 Based
on the revised inventory for year in which Fresno attained the standard (1993).
Our detailed evaluation of the 2004
CO Maintenance Plan and related
MVEBs under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and
(5) is provided in section IV of this
notice. Based on that evaluation and the
discussion provided above, we approve
the CO MVEBs for each of the ten
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:03 Nov 29, 2005
Jkt 208001
planning areas as set forth in the 2004
CO Maintenance Plan and clarified by
ARB in its letter dated May 23, 2005
because the plan and budgets meet the
requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)
and (5) and because we find that ARB
has met all statutory requirements for
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
submittals of maintenance plans under
sections 110 and part D of the Act.
In the submittal letter dated
November 8, 2004, ARB requested that
EPA limit the duration of our approval
of the MVEBs in the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan to last only until the
E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM
30NOR1
71784
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
effective date of future EPA adequacy
findings for replacement budgets. This
would mean that if ARB decided to
amend the CO MVEBs sometime in the
future, then the new MVEBs would
become effective as soon as EPA
determined adequacy, rather than after
comprehensive rulemaking (which is a
longer process). ARB had made a similar
request, and EPA granted it, in
connection with the MVEBs in the 1996
CO Maintenance Plan (see 67 FR 46618,
at 46620, November 15, 2002). That
request, however, was accompanied
with significant documentation that
demonstrated why limiting the duration
of our approval provided an advantage
to air quality and public health
protection. With the current request,
however, ARB has not provided any
supporting documentation. We note that
ARB’s request to limit the duration of
the approvals of the MVEBs was
contained only in the submittal letter
and is not, therefore, considered a part
of the maintenance plan itself.
Therefore, our denial of ARB’s request
does not affect our approval of the plan
or the budgets contained therein.
IV. Adequacy Finding for Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budgets
In this notice, we announce our
finding that the motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEBs) in the submitted 2004
Revision to the California State
Implementation Plan for Carbon
Monoxide, Updated Maintenance Plan
for Ten Federal Planning Areas
(adopted by ARB on July 22, 2004)
(‘‘2004 CO Maintenance Plan’’) are
adequate for transportation conformity
purposes. As a result of this finding, the
various metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs) with jurisdictions
in the ten planning areas and the U.S.
Department of Transportation must use
the CO MVEBs from the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan for future conformity
determinations. We are also announcing
this finding on our conformity Web site:
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/trasp/
conform/adequate.htm (once there,
click on the ‘‘What SIP submissions has
EPA already found adequate or
inadequate?’’ button).
Transportation conformity is required
by section 176(c) of the CAA. Our
transportation conformity rule (codified
in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A) requires
that transportation plans, programs, and
projects conform to SIPs and establishes
the criteria and procedures for
determining whether or not they do.
Conformity to the SIP means that
transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:03 Nov 29, 2005
Jkt 208001
timely attainment of the national
ambient air quality standards.
On March 2, 1999, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit issued a decision in
Environmental Defense Fund v.
Environmental Protection Agency, No.
97–1637, that we must make an
affirmative determination that the
submitted MVEBs contained in SIPs are
adequate before they are used to
determine the conformity of
Transportation Improvement Programs
or Long Range Transportation Plans. In
response to the court decision, we are
making any submitted SIP revision
containing a control strategy or
maintenance plan available for public
comment and responding to those
comments before announcing our
adequacy determination. The
conformity rule was recently changed to
reflect the procedures we have been
using since the court decision. See 69
FR 40004 (July 1, 2004) and related
correction notice at 69 FR 43325 (July
20, 2004).
ARB submitted the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan to EPA by letter dated
November 8, 2004, and we received this
plan on November 12, 2004. The plan
identifies CO MVEBs (calculated as
winter seasonal emissions in tons per
day) for each of the ten planning areas
for years 2003 and 2018.
We announced receipt of the plan on
the Internet and requested public
comment by December 27, 2004. We
requested clarification from ARB
because we were unsure whether ARB
had intended to set budgets for every
year after 2003. ARB submitted a letter
on December 23, 2004 explaining ARB’s
intent to replace the 1996 CO
Maintenance Plan budgets with new
budgets for 2003 and 2018.
Subsequently, we extended the
comment period until February 10,
2004, although we had not received any
comments in response to our Internet
posting on December 27, 2004. We did
not receive any comments during the
extended comment period either.
Because the transportation conformity
regulations require States to
demonstrate conformity to the last year
of the maintenance plan, EPA requested
further clarification from ARB on the
status of the MVEBs for 2010 (the last
year of the EPA-approved 1996 CO
Maintenance Plan). On May 23, 2005,
ARB submitted a letter to EPA
indicating that their intent was to
update the MVEBs from the 1996 CO
Maintenance Plan by setting new, more
stringent MVEBs starting in 2003. These
new MVEBs would apply to 2003, 2010
and 2018. Table 4, above, shows the
2004 CO Maintenance Plan MVEBs for
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2003, 2010 (the last year of the 1996 CO
Maintenance Plan), and 2018 (the last
year of the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan).
The criteria by which we determine
whether a SIP’s MVEBs are adequate for
conformity purposes are outlined in 40
CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). The following
paragraphs provide our review of ARB’s
2004 CO Maintenance Plan SIP
submittal against our adequacy criteria
and, based on that review, we conclude
that all of the criteria have been met and
that the MVEBs in the submitted 2004
CO Maintenance Plan are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes.
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i), we
review a submitted plan to determine
whether the plan was endorsed by the
Governor (or designee) and was subject
to a public hearing. The transmittal
letter for the submitted 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan was signed by
Catherine Witherspoon, Executive
Officer, ARB, the Governor’s designee
for CAA SIP purposes. ARB Resolution
04–20, included as enclosure 2 of the
SIP submittal, provides evidence of
adoption and legal authority. Enclosure
3 of the SIP submittal contains
documentation of a public hearing on
the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan that was
held on July 22, 2004. As such, the
submitted plan meets the criterion
under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i).
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii), we
review a submitted plan to determine
whether the plan was developed
through consultation with Federal, State
and local agencies and whether full
implementation plan documentation
was provided to EPA and EPA’s stated
concerns, if any, were addressed.
Consultation for development of this
plan largely consisted of public hearing
notices that were published in
newspapers of general circulation in
each of the ten planning areas. Given
the nature of this subsequent
maintenance plan submittal, which
includes no new control measures but
simply shifts one control measure (the
wintertime oxygenated gasoline
requirement) from active to contingent
status, and updates a previous plan to
reflect better emission estimates (based
on improved calculation methods and
updated source type and activity data)
and to extend the maintenance
demonstrations further into the future,
such limited consultation is sufficient
for the purposes of 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4)(ii).
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), we
review a submitted plan to determine
whether the MVEBs are clearly
identified and precisely quantified. The
2004 CO Maintenance Plan clearly
identifies and precisely quantifies the
CO MVEBs for each of the ten planning
E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM
30NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
area on pages 13 through 17 of the plan,
thereby meeting the adequacy criterion
under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii).
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv), we
review a submitted plan to determine
whether the MVEBs, when considered
together with all other emissions
sources, is consistent with applicable
requirements for reasonable further
progress, attainment, or maintenance
(whichever is relevant to a given SIP
submission). The 2004 CO Maintenance
Plan shows how the CO MVEBs and
related safety margins are consistent
with continued maintenance of the CO
NAAQS in each of the ten planning
areas through 2018 (see pages 13
through 17 of the plan). In particular,
Table 12 on page 17 of the maintenance
plan shows the extent to which
maximum potential 2018 emissions (i.e.,
including the budget safety margins) fall
below emissions calculated for the 1993
attainment year. Thus, the submitted
plan meets this criterion for adequacy.
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v), we
review a submitted plan to determine
whether the MVEBs are consistent with
and clearly related to the emissions
inventory and the control measures in
the submitted control strategy plan or
maintenance plan. The 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan contains no new
measures but the budgets appropriately
reflect the State’s adopted emissions
standards, fuel regulations (including
repeal of the wintertime oxygenated
gasoline requirements), and the vehicle
inspection and maintenance program, as
applicable in each of the ten planning
areas. Thus, the submitted plan meets
this criterion for adequacy.
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(vi), we
review a submitted plan to determine
whether revisions to previously
submitted plans explain and document
any changes to previously submitted
budgets and control measures; impacts
on point and area source emissions; any
changes to established safety margins;
and reasons for the changes (including
the basis for any changes related to
emissions factors or estimates of vehicle
miles traveled). The 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan explains and
documents the various changes that
have been made to the CO emissions
inventories, motor vehicle emissions
budgets, safety margins, and control
measures, including updates to the
emissions factor model (EMFAC2002 for
the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan versus
EMFAC7F for the 1996 CO Maintenance
Plan), updates to the travel activity data
from the local transportation agencies,
and the shift of the wintertime
oxygenated gasoline requirements from
active to contingent status. Thus, the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:03 Nov 29, 2005
Jkt 208001
submitted plan meets this criterion for
adequacy.
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(5), we review
the State’s compilation of public
comments and response to comments
that are required to be submitted with
any SIP revision. Enclosure 4 of the SIP
submittal contains one comment letter
that was received on the proposed 2004
CO Maintenance Plan. This comment
letter supported ARB approval of the
proposed plan. Enclosure 6 of the SIP
submittal contains minutes from the
July 22, 2004 public hearing. No further
comments on the plan were submitted
on the proposed plan at the public
hearing. Thus, the submitted plan meets
this criterion for adequacy.
Therefore, we find the CO MVEBs
contained in the submitted 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan to be adequate for
transportation conformity purposes.
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1), motor
vehicle emissions budgets in submitted
plans do not supersede the motor
vehicle emissions budgets in approved
plans for the same CAA requirement
and the period of years addressed by the
previously approved implementation
plan, unless EPA specifies otherwise in
its approval of a SIP. See 69 FR 40004,
at 40078 (July 1, 2004). In this instance,
the submitted plan (the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan) is a maintenance
plan that establishes MVEBs that are
intended to supersede previously
approved budgets from an earlier
maintenance plan (the 1996 CO
Maintenance Plan) for year 2010, the out
year of the 1996 plan. However, in a
final rule published on November 15,
2002, we limited the duration of our
approvals of the MVEBs in the 1996 CO
Maintenance Plan to last only until the
effective date of our adequacy finding
for new budgets that replace the existing
approved budgets for the same
pollutant, CAA requirement, and year.
See 67 FR 69139 (November 15, 2002).
Thus, upon the effective date of this
adequacy finding, the MVEBs in the
2004 CO Maintenance Plan will
supersede the previously-approved CO
MVEBs from the 1996 CO Maintenance
Plan.
The effective date for our adequacy
finding will coincide with the effective
date for our approval of the budgets as
part of our overall approval of the 2004
CO Maintenance Plan as a SIP revision
if we do not withdraw this direct final
rule in response to receipt of adverse
comments. If we receive adverse
comments on this direct final action, we
will withdraw the final rule as it relates
to the approval of the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan (and budgets), but the
adequacy determination will remain in
effect until we either make a subsequent
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71785
inadequacy determination or take
subsequent final action to approve or
disapprove the plan.
V. Technical Correction
In 1996, ARB submitted the 1996 CO
Maintenance Plan covering the ten
planning areas and requested they be
redesignated to attainment for the CO
NAAQS. On March 31, 1998, EPA
approved the 1996 Plan as a revision to
the California SIP and redesignated the
ten planning areas to attainment
effective June 1, 1998 (63 FR 15305). To
codify this rulemaking, we amended the
table in 40 CFR part 81, section 305 (40
CFR 81.305), that lists the designations
for air quality planning areas in
California, but in doing so, we
incorrectly identified April 30, 1998 as
the effective date for redesignation of
the ten planning areas to attainment for
CO. The correct date is June 1, 1998. In
addition, in our March 31, 1998 final
rule, we inadvertently deleted from the
California-Carbon Monoxide table the
detailed descriptions of three of the ten
planning areas: the Lake Tahoe North
Shore Area, the Lake Tahoe South Shore
Area, and the San Diego Area.
Section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act
provides, ‘‘Whenever the Administrator
determines that the Administrator’s
action approving, disapproving, or
promulgating any plan or plan revision
(or part thereof), area designation,
redesignation, classification, or
reclassification was in error, the
Administrator may in the same manner
as the approval, disapproval, or
promulgation revise such action as
appropriate without requiring any
further submission from the State. Such
determination and the basis thereof
shall be provided to the State and
public.’’ Under the authority vested in
EPA under section 110(k)(6) of the Act,
we are taking direct final action to
amend the California-Carbon Monoxide
table in 40 CFR 81.305 by changing the
effective date for redesignation from
April 30, 1998 to June 1, 1998 for each
of the ten areas addressed in this notice
and by re-codifying the previous
detailed descriptions of the Lake Tahoe
North Shore, Lake Tahoe South Shore,
and San Diego Areas.
VI. EPA’s Final Action
Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA,
EPA is approving as a revision to the
California SIP the 2004 Revision to the
California State Implementation Plan
for Carbon Monoxide, Updated
Maintenance Plan for Ten Federal
Planning Areas (‘‘2004 CO Maintenance
Plan’’), as adopted by ARB on July 22,
2004 and submitted by ARB to EPA on
November 8, 2004.
E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM
30NOR1
71786
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
In so doing, EPA has determined that
this submittal meets the CAA
requirement under section 175A(b) to
prepare and submit a SIP revision that
provides for continued maintenance of
the CO NAAQS for a period of 10 years
following the initial 10-year
maintenance period that began with
redesignation of the following ten
planning areas from nonattainment to
attainment: Bakersfield, Chico, Fresno,
Lake Tahoe North Shore, Lake Tahoe
South Shore, Modesto, Sacramento, San
Diego, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose,
and Stockton.
As part of our overall approval of the
2004 CO Maintenance Plan, we approve
the following specific plan elements:
• Emission inventory updates and
projections, as well as the maintenance
demonstrations through 2018, for the
ten planning areas covered by the plan;
• Commitment to continue
monitoring for the purpose of verifying
continued attainment;
• Contingency provisions under CAA
section 175A(d), specifically, the State’s
commitment related to the wintertime
oxygenated gasoline requirements
contained in ARB Resolution 98–52 and
included as Appendix C of the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan; and
• CO motor vehicle emissions
budgets (in terms of winter seasonal
emissions in tons per day) for the years
2003, 2010, and 2018, for each of the ten
planning areas as follows:
2003
Bakersfield .......................................................................................................................................................................
Chico ................................................................................................................................................................................
Fresno ..............................................................................................................................................................................
Lake Tahoe North Shore .................................................................................................................................................
Lake Tahoe South Shore ................................................................................................................................................
Modesto ...........................................................................................................................................................................
Sacramento ......................................................................................................................................................................
San Diego ........................................................................................................................................................................
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose ...................................................................................................................................
Stockton ...........................................................................................................................................................................
In connection with the motor vehicle
emissions budgets, we are denying
ARB’s request to limit our approval of
the above budgets to last only until the
effective date of future EPA adequacy
findings for replacement budgets, but
our denial of ARB’s request does not
affect our approval of the plan itself or
the budgets contained therein.
Also, in connection with the motor
vehicle emissions budgets, we are
finding them adequate for the purposes
of transportation conformity. As a result
of this finding, the various metropolitan
planning organizations in the ten
planning areas and the U.S. Department
of Transportation must use the CO
motor vehicle emissions budgets from
the submitted maintenance plan for
future conformity determinations.
Lastly, under CAA section 110(k)(6),
we are correcting our 1998 final rule in
which we approved ARB’s submittal of
the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan and
redesignated the ten planning areas to
attainment for the CO NAAQS by fixing
the erroneous effective date listed in the
table entitled ‘‘California—Carbon
Monoxide’’ in 40 CFR part 81.305 and
by re-codifying in that same table
detailed descriptions of the Lake Tahoe
North Shore, Lake Tahoe South Shore,
and San Diego areas that had
inadvertently been deleted in that same
1998 rulemaking.
We do not anticipate any objections to
this action, so we are finalizing the
correction action without proposing it
in advance. However, in the Proposed
Rules section of this Federal Register,
we are simultaneously proposing this
same action. If we receive adverse
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:03 Nov 29, 2005
Jkt 208001
comments by December 30, 2005, we
will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public
that the direct final approval will not
take effect and we will address the
comments in a subsequent final action
based on the proposal. Such a
withdrawal of this direct final rule will
not, however, affect the adequacy
finding related to the motor vehicle
emissions budgets. The adequacy
finding will become effective January
30, 2006 and remain in effect unless and
until EPA makes an inadequacy finding,
or takes final action to approve or
disapprove the plan. If we do not
receive timely adverse comments, the
direct final action will be effective
without further notice on January 30,
2006 and our approval of the motor
vehicle emissions budgets will be
effective on the same date as our
adequacy finding related to those
budgets.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
therefore is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget. For
this reason, this action is also not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely approves
State law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
State law. Accordingly, the
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2010
2018
180
80
240
11
19
130
420
730
1,850
170
180
80
240
11
19
130
420
730
1,850
170
180
80
240
11
19
130
420
730
1,850
170
Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
rule approves pre-existing requirements
under State law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by State law, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4).
This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have federalism
implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
approves a State rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act. This rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM
30NOR1
71787
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically
significant as defined in Executive
Order 12866, and because the Agency
does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this rule present a
disproportionate risk to children.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This rule does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by January 30, 2006.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See CAA
section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations. Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National Parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: November 15, 2005.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended
as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(341) to read as
follows:
I
§ 52.220
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(341) The 2004 Revision to the
California State Implementation Plan for
Carbon Monoxide, Updated Carbon
Monoxide Maintenance Plan for the Ten
Federal Planning Areas, submitted on
November 8, 2004 by the Governor’s
designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) California Air Resources Board.
(1) 2004 Revision to the California
State Implementation Plan for Carbon
Monoxide, Updated Maintenance Plan
for Ten Federal Planning Areas, adopted
by the California Air Resources Board
on July 22, 2004. The ten Federal
planning areas include Bakersfield
Metropolitan Area, Chico Urbanized
Area, Fresno Urbanized Area, Lake
Tahoe North Shore Area, Lake Tahoe
South Shore Area, Modesto Urbanized
Area, Sacramento Urbanized Area, San
Diego Area, San Francisco-Oakland-San
Jose Area, and Stockton Urbanized Area.
PART 81—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 81
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart C—[Amended]
2. In § 81.305, the table entitled
‘‘California—Carbon Monoxide’’ is
amended by revising the entry for
Bakersfield Area, Chico Area, Fresno
Area, Lake Tahoe North Shore Area,
Lake Tahoe South Shore Area, Modesto
Area, Sacramento Area, San Diego Area,
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area,
and Stockton Area to read as follows:
I
§ 81.305
*
*
California.
*
*
*
CALIFORNIA—CARBON MONOXIDE
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date1
Bakersfield Area:
Kern County (part)
Bakersfield Metropolitan Area (Urbanized part) .....................................
Chico Area:
Butte County (part)
Chico Urbanized Area (Census Bureau Urbanized part) ......................
Fresno Area:
Fresno County (part)
Fresno Urbanized Area ..........................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:03 Nov 29, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Type
June 1, 1998 ....
Attainment
June 1, 1998 ....
Attainment
June 1, 1998 ....
Attainment
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM
30NOR1
Date
Type
71788
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
CALIFORNIA—CARBON MONOXIDE—Continued
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date1
Lake Tahoe North Shore Area:
Placer County (part)
That portion of Placer County within the drainage area naturally tributary to Lake Tahoe including said Lake, plus that area in the vicinity
of the head of the Truckee River described as follows: commencing
at the point common to the aforementioned drainage area crestline
and the line common to Townships 15 North and 16 North, Mount
Diablo Base, and Meridian (M.D.B. & M.), and following that line in
a westerly direction to the northwest corner of Section 3, Township
15 North, Range 16 East, M.D.B. & M., thence south along the
west line of Sections 3 and 10, Township 15 north, Range 16 East,
M.D.B. & M., to the intersection with the said drainage area
crestline, thence following the said drainage area boundary in a
southeasterly, then northeasterly direction to and along the Lake
Tahoe Dam, thence following the said drainage area crestline in a
northeasterly, then northwesterly direction to the point of beginning.
Lake Tahoe South Shore Area:
El Dorado County (part)
That portion of El Dorado County within the drainage area naturally
tributary to Lake Tahoe including said Lake, as described under 40
CFR 81.275.
*
*
*
*
Modesto Area:
Stanislaus County (part)
Modesto Urbanized Area (Census Bureau Urbanized Area) ................
Sacramento Area:
Census Bureau Urbanized Area)
Placer County (part).
Sacramento County (part).
Yolo County (part).
San Diego Area:
San Diego County (part)
The Western Section of Air Pollution Control District of San Diego
County is defined as all that portion of San Diego County, State of
California, lying westerly of the following described line:.
1. Beginning at the Northwest of Township 9 South, Range 1
West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian;
2. thence running Southerly along the West line of said township
to the south line therof;
3. thence Easterly along said South line to the range line between Range 1 West and Range 1 East;
4. thence Southerly along said range line to the township line between Township 11 South and 12 South;
5. thence Easterly along said township line to the range line between Range 1 East and Range 2 East;
6. thence Southerly along said range line to the international
boundary between the United States of America and Mexico.
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area:
Urbanized Areas
Alameda County (part)
Contra Costa County (part)
Marin County (part)
Napa County (part)
San Francisco County
San Mateo County (part)
Santa Clara County (part)
Solano County (part)
Sonoma County (part)
Stockton Area:
San Joaquin County (part)
Stockton Urbanized Area
*
1 This
*
*
Type
June 1, 1998 ....
Attainment
*
*
Attainment
June 1, 1998 ....
Attainment
June 1, 1998 ....
Attainment
June 1, 1998 ....
19:03 Nov 29, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Attainment
*
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
*
Attainment
June 1, 1998 ....
*
*
June 1, 1998 ....
*
date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Type
Attainment
June 1, 1998 ....
Date
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM
30NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–23502 Filed 11–29–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 710
[OPP–2005–0075; FRL–7744–8]
RIN–2070 AC61
TSCA Inventory Update Reporting
Partially Exempted Chemicals
List;Addition of 1,2,3-Propanetriol;
Correction
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Final rule; correction.
SUMMARY: EPA issued a direct final rule
in theFederal Register of October 17,
2005, to amend the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a)
Inventory Update Reporting (IUR)
regulations by adding 1,2,3-propanetriol
(CASRN 56–81–5) to the list of chemical
substances in 40 CFR 710.46(b)(2)(iv)
which are exempt from reporting
processing and use information required
by 40 CFR 710.52(c)(4). The document
incorrectly listed the section heading for
§ 710.46 in the regulatory text. This
document is being issued to correct that
error.
This final rule is effective on
November 30, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed
instructions as provided under the
ADDRESSES unit in the Federal Register
document of October 17, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Sharkey, Project Manager,
Economics, Exposure and Technology
Division (7406M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–
0001; telephone number: (202) 564–
8789; e-mail address:
sharkey.susanepa.gov.
DATES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
The Agency included in the direct
final rule a list of those who may be
potentially affected by this action. If you
have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:03 Nov 29, 2005
Jkt 208001
B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies
of this Document and Other Related
Information?
In addition to using EDOCKET at
https://www.epa.gov/edocket/, you may
access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet
under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A
frequently updated electronic version of
40 CFR part 710 is available at E-CFR
Beta Site Two at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.
II. What Does this Correction Do?
In FR Doc. 05–20771 appearing on
page 60217, the following correction is
made:
§ 710.46 [Corrected]
On page 60221 in the second column,
the section heading for § 710.46 is
corrected to read: ‘‘§ 710.46 Chemical
substances for which information is not
required.’’
III. Why is this Correction Issued as a
Final Rule?
Section 553 of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), provides that, when an
Agency for good cause finds that notice
and public procedure are impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public
interest, the agency may issue a final
rule without providing notice and an
opportunity for public comment. EPA
has determined that there is good cause
for making today’s technical correction
final without prior proposal and
opportunity for comment, because the
use of notice and comment procedures
are unnecessary to effectuate this
correction. EPA finds that this
constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B).
IV. Do Any of the Statutory and
Executive Order Reviews Apply to this
Action?
No. This action only corrects an
inadvertent error in the section heading
of the regulatory text for a previously
published final rule and does not
impose any new requirements. EPA’s
compliance with the statutes and
Executive Orders for the underlying rule
is discussed in Unit V. of the October
17, 2005, direct final rule (70 FR 60217).
V. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71789
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of this final
rule in the Federal Register. This final
rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 710
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Hazardous materials, 1,2,3-Propanetriol,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: November 7, 2005.
Charles M. Auer,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
[FR Doc. 05–23436 Filed 11–29–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[DA 05–2942; MB Docket No. 05–188; RM–
11240]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Bass
River Township and Ocean City, NJ
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In response to a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, 70 FR 31409
(June 1, 2005), this Report and Order
substitutes Channel 293A for Channel
292A, Station WKOE(FM), Ocean City,
New Jersey; reallots Channel 293A, from
Ocean City to Bass River Township; and
modifies Station WKOE’s license
accordingly. The coordinates for
Channel 293A at Bass River Township,
New Jersey, are 39–39–00 NL and 74–
21–20 WL, with a site restriction of 10.4
kilometers (6.4 miles) northeast of Bass
River Township.
DATES: Effective December 27, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R.
Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau, (202)
418–2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Report
and Order, MB Docket No. 05–188,
adopted November 9, 2005, and released
November 10, 2005. The full text of this
Commission decision is available for
inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC’s Reference
Information Center at Portals II, 445
12th Street, SW., Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. The document
may also be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
E:\FR\FM\30NOR1.SGM
30NOR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 30, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71776-71789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23502]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[R09-OAR-2005-CA-0010; FRL-8002-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; Carbon Monoxide
Maintenance Plan Update for Ten Planning Areas; Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets; Technical Correction
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final action to approve a State
Implementation Plan revision, submitted by the California Air Resources
Board on November 8, 2004, that includes the 2004 Revision to the
California State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide, Updated
Maintenance Plan for Ten Federal Planning Areas. This revision will
provide a ten-year update to the carbon monoxide maintenance plan, as
well as replace existing and establish new carbon monoxide motor
vehicle emissions budgets for the purposes of determining
transportation conformity, for the following ten areas: Bakersfield
Metropolitan Area, Chico Urbanized Area, Fresno Urbanized Area, Lake
[[Page 71777]]
Tahoe North Shore Area, Lake Tahoe South Shore Area, Modesto Urbanized
Area, Sacramento Urbanized Area, San Diego Area, San Francisco-Oakland-
San Jose Area, and Stockton Urbanized Area. EPA is taking this action
pursuant to those provisions of the Clean Air Act that obligate the
agency to take action on submittals of revisions to State
implementation plans. The intended effect of this action is to fulfill
the requirement under the Clean Air Act for a State to submit a
subsequent maintenance plan that provides for continued maintenance of
a National Ambient Air Quality Standard within former nonattainment
areas within eight years of redesignation of those areas to attainment.
In connection with the motor vehicle emissions budgets, we are denying
a request by the California Air Resources Board for EPA to limit the
duration of our approval of the budgets.
Also, in this action, EPA is notifying the public that we have
found that the carbon monoxide motor vehicle emissions budgets
contained in the submitted maintenance plan are adequate for conformity
purposes. As a result of this finding, the various metropolitan
planning organizations in the ten planning areas and the U.S.
Department of Transportation must use the CO motor vehicle emissions
budgets from the submitted maintenance plan for future conformity
determinations.
Lastly, EPA is correcting certain errors made in our 1998 final
rule approving California's redesignation request for these ten
planning areas.
DATES: This rule is effective on January 30, 2006 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 30, 2005. If
we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number R09-OAR-2005-
CA-0010, by one of the following methods:
1. Agency Web site: https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. EPA prefers
receiving comments through this electronic public docket and comment
system. Follow the on-line instructions to submit comments.
2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
3. E-mail: tiktinsky.toby@epa.gov.
4. Mail or deliver: Toby Tiktinsky (Air-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at https://
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through the
agency Web site, eRulemaking portal or e-mail. The agency Web site and
eRulemaking portal are ``anonymous access'' systems, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toby Tiktinsky, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4223, tiktinsky.toby@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to U.S. EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. What Action Is EPA Taking?
B. Why Is California Submitting This SIP Revision?
C. What Process Did California Use To Develop This Plan?
D. Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
E. What Are Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs)?
II. How Are We Evaluating This Submittal?
III. EPA's Evaluation of 2004 CO Maintenance Plan
A. Attainment Inventory
B. Maintenance Demonstration
C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
D. Contingency Provisions
E. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
IV. Adequacy Finding for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
V. Technical Correction
VI. EPA's Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. What Action Is EPA Taking?
Under section 110(k)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), we
are approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by
the California Air Resources Board (ARB) on November 8, 2004. This SIP
revision consists of the 2004 Revision to the California State
Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide, Updated Maintenance Plan for
Ten Federal Planning Areas (``2004 CO Maintenance Plan''), ARB Board
Resolution 04-20 adopting the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, and related
public process documentation. The 2004 CO Maintenance Plan will provide
a ten-year update to the carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plan, as well
as replace existing and establish new motor vehicle emissions budgets
(MVEBs), for the following ten areas, referred to herein collectively
as the ``ten planning areas'': Bakersfield Metropolitan Area, Chico
Urbanized Area, Fresno Urbanized Area, Lake Tahoe North Shore Area,
Lake Tahoe South Shore Area, Modesto Urbanized Area, Sacramento
Urbanized Area, San Diego Area, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area,
and Stockton Urbanized Area. ARB's November 8, 2004 SIP submittal was
deemed complete by operation of law six months after receipt under
section 110(k)(1)(B).
In connection with the MVEBs, we are denying a request by the
California Air Resources Board for EPA to limit the duration of our
approval of the budgets. Also, in this notice, EPA is notifying the
public that we have found that the MVEBs contained in the submitted
maintenance plan are adequate for transportation conformity purposes.
Lastly, we are also correcting, pursuant to section 110(k)(6) of
the Act, certain errors that we made in our 1998 final rule approving
California's redesignation request for these ten planning areas.
B. Why Is California Submitting This SIP Revision?
All ten planning areas that are the subject of this rulemaking were
originally designated as nonattainment areas for the CO National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 1978. See 43 FR 8962 (March 3,
1978). Because all of the ten planning areas remained ``nonattainment''
for the CO NAAQS at the time of enactment of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, their nonattainment designations were carried
forward by operation of law
[[Page 71778]]
under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Act, as amended in 1990. Based on
their design values in 1990, eight of the ten areas were further
classified as ``moderate'' nonattainment. The air quality in two of the
areas (Lake Tahoe North Shore Area and Bakersfield Metropolitan Area),
however, was near the standard, but not below it. Thus, these two areas
were not further classified, but retained their ``nonattainment''
designations. [See 56 FR 56694, at 56723-56726 (November 6, 1991).]
Once an area achieves the NAAQS, and the area demonstrates in a
maintenance plan that it can continue to meet the air quality
standards, the State can request that EPA redesignate the area to
attainment. Before an area can be redesignated to attainment, EPA must
ensure the maintenance plan meets the criteria established in section
175A of the CAA. The plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the
applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the Administrator
approves a redesignation to attainment.
In 1996, California submitted the Final Carbon Monoxide
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for Ten Federal Planning
Areas (``1996 CO Maintenance Plan''). The 1996 CO Maintenance Plan
demonstrated continued maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the ten planning
areas through 2010. On March 31, 1998, EPA approved the 1996 CO
Maintenance Plan as a revision to the California SIP and redesignated
the ten areas to attainment effective June 1, 1998 (63 FR 15305).
One of the control measures that the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan
relies upon is the State's wintertime oxygenated gasoline requirement.
Due to concerns over the effects of the predominant oxygenate used to
comply with the wintertime gasoline requirements, methyl tertiary butyl
ether (MTBE), on water quality, the ARB rescinded the wintertime
oxygenated gasoline requirement as it relates to the ten planning areas
covered by the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan. In November 1998, ARB amended
the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan to remove the CO emissions reductions
benefits associated with the wintertime oxygenated gasoline
requirement, and submitted the revised maintenance plan, Revision to
1996 Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for 10 Federal Planning Areas
(``1998 CO Maintenance Plan''), as a SIP revision to EPA in December
1998. In the 1998 CO Maintenance Plan, ARB estimates that repeal of the
wintertime oxygenated gasoline requirement results in an increase in CO
emissions in the ten planning areas of approximately 9% but concludes
that the CO NAAQS would still be maintained through 2010. We have taken
no action on the 1998 CO Maintenance Plan SIP revision and consider the
more recent submittal, i.e., the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan SIP
submittal, to supersede this earlier submittal.
Section 175A(b) of the Act requires the State to submit, eight
years after redesignation of any area to attainment, an additional
revision of the SIP that provides for maintenance of the applicable
NAAQS for the 10-year period following the initial maintenance period.
ARB's current submission updates the maintenance plan to cover the
remainder of the twenty year maintenance period (1998 to 2018) required
by the CAA and is intended to satisfy the section 175A(b) requirement
for a subsequent maintenance plan.
C. What Process Did California Use To Develop This Plan?
ARB held a public hearing on the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan on July
22, 2004 and adopted the plan on the same day. Thirty days prior to
that date, ARB arranged for publication of notices of the July 22, 2004
public hearing in major newspapers that circulate in each of the ten
planning areas. By letter dated November 8, 2004, ARB submitted the
2004 CO Maintenance Plan for approval by EPA as a revision to the
California SIP. As enclosures to the November 8, 2004 letter, ARB
provided evidence of adoption (ARB resolution 04-20), the necessary
legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the plan, copies
of public hearing notices in which ARB was to address the contents of
the plan revision, and minutes from the July 22, 2004 public hearing
produced by a certified court reporting service. ARB is the Governor's
designee for submitting SIP revisions.
D. Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
The 2004 CO Maintenance Plan provides a summary of ambient CO
concentration data collected within the ten planning areas since the
areas attained the CO NAAQS. The data, which is summarized in Table 1
below, indicate that the CO NAAQS has been maintained in the ten
planning areas since the mid-1990s, that design values are currently
well below the CO NAAQS, and that, with one exception, there is a
continuing downward trend in the CO design values in these areas.
Table 1.--Design Values for the 8-Hour CO NAAQS in California
[Parts per million or ppm]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO maintenance area Attainment period 1995 2000 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bakersfield.................................................... 1992-1994--6.1 6.1 5.2 2.5
Chico.......................................................... 1993-1995--5.4 5.0 4.0 3.4
Fresno......................................................... 1993-1995--9.1 8.5 7.6 4.3
Lake Tahoe North Shore......................................... 1993-1994--3.8 3.2 0.9 N/A
Lake Tahoe South Shore......................................... 1993-1994--7.4 6.8 4.3 6.5
Modesto........................................................ 1993-1994--6.6 6.3 6.3 3.7
Sacramento..................................................... 1993-1995--9.1 8.0 6.2 4.2
San Diego...................................................... 1993-1994--7.0 7.4 4.9 4.1
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose................................. 1993-1994--7.2 7.5 6.9 4.9
Stockton....................................................... 1993-1994--7.5 7.5 6.3 3.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ARB, 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, page 5.
Note: The 8-hour CO design value is computed by first finding the maximum and second maximum (non-overlapping) 8-
hour values at each monitoring site for each year of a given two-year period. Then the higher of the two
``second high'' values is used as the design value for a given monitoring site, and the highest design value
among the various CO monitoring sites represents the CO design value for the given area.
N/A = Not Available.
[[Page 71779]]
E. What Are Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs)?
In developing plans for improving or maintaining air quality under
the CAA, regions must estimate the total emissions from motor vehicles.
These estimates act as a budget or ceiling for emissions from motor
vehicles. EPA evaluates these budgets to ensure that current and future
motor vehicle emissions will not prevent a region from attaining or
maintaining the NAAQS. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) must
ensure that transportation plans and programs do not lead to increases
in motor vehicle emissions that would exceed the established budgets
and, consequently, hinder a region from attaining or maintaining the
NAAQS.
II. How Are We Evaluating This Submittal?
We are evaluating this SIP revision submittal under sections 110
and 175A of the Act.
Section 110(k) of the Act requires EPA to approve, disapprove, or
conditionally approve all SIP submittals found or deemed to be
complete. As noted above, ARB's SIP submittal containing the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan was deemed complete by operation of law.
Section 110(l) of the Act requires that each SIP revision submitted
by a State be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public
hearing. As noted above, ARB adopted the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan on
July 22, 2004 after having provided for reasonable notice and a public
hearing. We find the public process ARB used to develop and adopt this
SIP revision to be acceptable under section 110(l) of the Act.
Section 110(l) also states that EPA shall not approve a SIP
revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or
any other applicable requirement of the Act. We evaluate the potential
for this SIP revision to interfere with continued maintenance in
Section III.B (``Maintenance Demonstration'') of this notice in the
context of approving the wintertime oxygenated gasoline requirement as
a contingency measure.
Section 175A(b) of the Act requires the State to submit, eight
years after redesignation of any area to attainment, an additional
revision of the SIP that provides for maintenance of the applicable
NAAQS for the 10-year period following the initial maintenance period.
Section 175A(d) requires that plan revisions submitted under section
175A contain such contingency provisions as EPA deems necessary to
assure that the State will promptly correct any violation of the
standard which occurs after the redesignation of the area as an
attainment area. Such contingency provisions must include a requirement
that the State will implement all measures with respect to the control
of the air pollutant concerned which were contained in the SIP for the
area before redesignation of the area as an attainment area.
Maintenance plans submitted under section 175A of the Act should
include the following core provisions: An attainment inventory, a
maintenance demonstration, commitment to continue operating an
appropriate monitoring network, commitment to verify continued
attainment, and a contingency plan. See EPA Policy Memorandum,
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Ares to
Attainment,'' John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division
Directors, September 4, 1992 (``Calcagni memo''). Our evaluation of the
2004 CO Maintenance Plan is provided in the following section of this
notice.
III. EPA's Evaluation of 2004 CO Maintenance Plan
A. Attainment Inventory
For maintenance plans, a State should develop a comprehensive,
accurate inventory of actual emissions for an attainment year to
identify the level of emissions which is sufficient to maintain the
NAAQS. A State should develop these inventories consistent with EPA's
most recent guidance on emissions inventory development.
The 1996 CO Maintenance Plan included attainment inventories for
each of the ten planning areas. As part of the 2004 CO Maintenance
Plan, ARB updated the emissions inventories for year 1993, which was
the common attainment year for all ten planning areas in the 1996 CO
Maintenance Plan, to reflect better calculation methods and emissions
factors. ARB also developed a CO emissions inventory for a more recent
attainment year, 2003. Table 2 presents a summary of the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan's emissions estimates for these two attainment years
(1993 and 2003) as well as the plan's updated projections of emissions
for 2010 (the horizon or out-year of the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan) and
a projection of emissions for 2018 (the out-year of the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan). Table 2 shows wintertime seasonal CO emissions
decreasing steadily over the next thirteen years. ARB attributes the
continuing decline in emissions, despite growth in population and
vehicle miles traveled (VMT), to the benefits of increasingly tighter
emissions standards for new engines, fuel requirements, and turnover of
the vehicle fleet to lower-emitting models.
Table 2.--Total CO Emissions in Each Maintenance Area
[Winter seasonal emissions in tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO maintenance area 1993 2003 2010 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bakersfield......................... 478 298 234 191
Chico............................... 232 164 134 113
Fresno.............................. 627 400 302 244
Lake Tahoe North Shore Area......... 25 19 16 14
Lake Tahoe South Shore Area......... 61 49 45 43
Modesto............................. 331 206 151 120
Sacramento.......................... 1,125 658 487 388
San Diego........................... 1,889 1,101 829 643
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose...... 4,254 2,645 1,716 1,322
Stockton............................ 433 258 188 153
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ARB, 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, page 8.
Appendix B of the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan shows emission
inventories by major source category. ARB prepared the motor-vehicle
portion of the emissions inventories by using the current version of
California's motor
[[Page 71780]]
vehicle emission factor model EMFAC2002, version 2.2. EPA approved the
use of EMFAC2002 to estimate motor vehicle emissions on April 1, 2003
(see 68 FR 15720). The emissions estimates in table 2 above for
inventory years 2003, 2010, and 2018 do not include the emissions
benefit from the (now rescinded) wintertime oxygenated gasoline
requirement but do include the emissions benefit from the measures that
ARB adopted as contingency measures in the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan.
These measures, which are listed on page 12 of the 2004 CO Maintenance
Plan, include improvements to the vehicle inspection and maintenance
(I/M) program, on-board diagnostics systems testing for newer vehicles,
California cleaner burning gasoline, off-highway recreational vehicle
standards, tighter lawn and garden equipment standards, and tighter
low-emission vehicle and clean fuel regulations.
EPA has reviewed the emissions inventories included in the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan and the related emissions inventory preparation
documentation and concludes that the inventories are comprehensive and
reflect acceptable methods and emissions factors and that the
inventories present reasonably accurate estimates of actual and
projected CO emissions in the ten planning areas.
B. Maintenance Demonstration
Generally, a State may demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by
either showing that future emissions of a pollutant or its precursors
will not exceed the level of the attainment inventory, or by modeling
to show that the future mix of sources and emissions rates will not
cause a violation of the NAAQS. For areas that are required under the
Act to submit modeled attainment demonstrations, the maintenance
demonstration should use the same type of modeling. In areas where
modeling is not required, the State may rely on the attainment
inventory approach. For subsequent maintenance plans, to comply with
section 175A(b) of the Act, the State's maintenance demonstration must
extend 10 years after the expiration of the 10-year maintenance period
covered by the initial maintenance plan.
In the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan, ARB provided maintenance
demonstrations (through 2010) for nine of the 10 areas based on the
attainment inventory approach and provided a maintenance demonstration
(through 2010) based on modeling (rollback method) for the one area
(Fresno) for which modeling had been required for attainment
demonstration purposes under the Act.
In the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, ARB updated the emissions
inventories for all ten areas (see Table 2, above). For the nine areas
for which maintenance demonstrations are based on the inventory
approach, the updated estimates of total CO emissions in each area show
a continuing downward trend through 2018 (i.e., 20 years after
redesignation) and thus demonstrate maintenance of the CO NAAQS through
the required period. ARB also updated the maintenance demonstration for
the Fresno area, once again relying on the rollback method to show that
the CO NAAQS would be maintained in that area through 2018. Table 3
summarizes the updated rollback analysis for Fresno and shows that the
design values for Fresno are anticipated to continue to fall well below
those achieved in the 1993-1995 attainment period.
We find the maintenance demonstrations for the ten planning areas
in the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan to be acceptable for the purposes of
CAA section 175A(b). Further, we find that, based on the maintenance
demonstrations contained in the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, the revision
in the status of one of the principal control measures relied upon in
the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan, the wintertime oxygenated gasoline
requirement, from ``active'' status to ``contingent'' status is
approvable under section 110(l) because it will not interfere with
continued maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the ten planning areas.
Table 3.--CO Rollback Analysis for Fresno Area
[Winter seasonal emissions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno urbanized area 1993 2003 2010 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Sources of CO in the 627 400 302 244
Emission Inventory (tons per
day)...........................
Projected Design Value for All 9.1 5.8 4.4 3.5
Sources in the Inventory (in
ppm)...........................
On-Road Motor Vehicle Portion of 450 236 141 77
the CO Emission Inventory (tons
per day).......................
Projected Design Value for On- 9.1 4.8 2.9 1.6
Road Motor Vehicle Portion of
the Inventory (in ppm).........
Vehicle Miles Traveled (in 15,987 20,624 24,895 29,487
thousands).....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ARB, 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, page 11.
C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
Once an area has been redesignated, the State should continue to
operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area. The
maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued operation of
air quality monitors that will provide such verification. The
maintenance plan should also indicate how the State will track the
progress of the maintenance plan, such as by periodically updating the
emissions inventory.
In the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan, ARB indicates that it intends to
continue to comply with the monitoring criteria set forth in 40 CFR
part 58, and that it will annually review data from the two most
recent, consecutive years in order to verify continued attainment of
the CO NAAQS. In the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, ARB reiterates its
intent to continue to collect air quality data and to review data on an
annual basis from the two most recent consecutive years to verify
continued attainment of the CO NAAQS.
Based on the compilation of information in appendix A of the 2004
CO Maintenance Plan, we note that, in the aggregate, ten CO monitoring
sites in the ten planning areas have closed since redesignation of
these areas to attainment for the CO NAAQS, but 33 sites remain open
with at least one CO monitoring site continuing to operate in each
planning area, except for the Lake Tahoe North Shore Area. The
reduction in the number of CO monitoring sites is acceptable in light
of the sharp decline in maximum CO concentrations in each of the ten
planning areas and the need to shift resources to address other air
quality priorities. We also believe that the lack of a CO monitoring
site in the Lake Tahoe North Shore Area is acceptable given the very
low CO concentrations measured there. In addition, audits of a number
of the
[[Page 71781]]
ambient monitoring networks in the ten planning areas since
redesignation have found no significant problems with any of the
networks.
Under EPA's Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule, published in the
Federal Register on June 10, 2002 (see 67 FR 39602), states are
required to prepare comprehensive statewide inventories every three
years. In addition, under State law (California Health and Safety Code
Section 39607.3), ARB is required to update emissions inventories for
all areas of California for CO as well as the other criteria pollutants
on an on-going basis. Although not cited in the 2004 Maintenance Plan,
the Federal and State inventory update requirements suffice to track
progress of the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan.
We find ARB's stated intention to continue to collect air quality
data and to verify continued attainment of the CO NAAQS to be
acceptable for the purposes of CAA section 175A(b) based on our
conclusion that ARB has consistently operated its monitoring networks
in compliance with 40 CFR part 58 and continues to operate an
appropriate number of CO monitoring sites in the planning areas covered
by the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan.
D. Contingency Provisions
CAA section 175A(d) requires that ``Each plan revision submitted
under this section shall contain such contingency provisions as the
Administrator deems necessary to assure that the State will promptly
correct any violation of the standard which occurs after the
redesignation of the area as an attainment area. Such provisions shall
include a requirement that the State will implement all measures with
respect to the control of the air pollutant concerned which were
contained in the State implementation plan for the area before
redesignation of the area as an attainment area.'' The following
sections discuss the contingency provisions included in the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan.
The EPA-approved 1996 CO Maintenance Plan included seven
contingency measures: improved basic I/M program requirements (Chico,
Lake Tahoe North Shore, Lake Tahoe South Shore, and San Francisco-
Oakland-San Jose Areas); enhanced I/M program requirements
(Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, and Sacramento Areas); on-board
diagnostics systems testing requirements in I/M programs (Statewide);
California Cleaner-Burning Gasoline regulations (Statewide); Off-
Highway Recreational Vehicles standards (Statewide); lawn and garden
equipment--tier II requirements (Statewide); and low-emission vehicles
and clean fuels (post-1995) standards (Statewide). At the time of ARB's
adoption of the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan, these measures had already
been adopted and were anticipated to be implemented during the 1996
through 2001 period regardless of any triggering event associated with
high CO concentrations. The CO emissions reductions associated with
these seven contingency measures were not included in the maintenance
demonstrations for the ten planning areas and thus were surplus to the
CO emissions reductions assumed in the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan.
CAA section 211(m) establishes particular requirements for adopting
provisions requiring the use of oxygenated fuels in areas designated
nonattainment for the CO NAAQS and registering design values above 9.5
ppm.
Pursuant to this section of the CAA, ARB submitted its motor
vehicle fuels regulations, including its requirements for wintertime
oxygen content, to EPA for approval on November 15, 1994. Eight areas
in California were required to provide for the sale of oxygenated
gasoline during winter months under section 211(m): Chico, Fresno,
Modesto, Sacramento, San Diego and Sacramento MSAs, and the Los
Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside and San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose CSMAs.
Because of the number of carbon monoxide nonattainment areas, however,
ARB required the use of wintertime oxygenates for the entire State. EPA
approved the State's wintertime oxygenated gasoline regulations on
August 21, 1995 (60 FR 43379).
California succeeded in reducing significantly CO emissions,
prompting ARB to request that EPA redesignate the ten planning areas to
attainment and to submit a maintenance plan (adopted by ARB April 25,
1996) and referred to herein as the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan that
demonstrates how the State will continue to meet NAAQS for CO. The 1996
CO Maintenance Plan (which EPA approved March 31, 1998 [63 FR 15305])
identified the wintertime oxygenated gasoline requirement as one of the
principal control measures and relied on the associated emissions
reductions to demonstrate continued attainment.
On November 19, 1998, ARB approved an amendment to California's CO
maintenance plan rescinding in most areas the wintertime oxygenated
gasoline requirement (see ARB Resolution 98-52, November 19, 1998
included as Appendix C of the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan). Because the
State had achieved significant reductions in CO emissions from other
control measures, the wintertime oxygenated gasoline requirement was no
longer necessary to maintain the CO NAAQS in the ten planning areas.
The growing concern about the risks of the widely used oxygenate MTBE
(methyl tertiary butyl ether) also influenced ARB's decision to rescind
the wintertime oxygenated gasoline requirement. Because it is highly
soluble in water and transfers to groundwater faster, farther and more
easily than other gasoline constituents, ARB concluded that MTBE poses
a significant threat to groundwater, surface water, and drinking water
systems. The following year (March 26, 1999), Governor Gray Davis
signed Executive Order D-5-99 ordering the phase-out of MTBE. The
Executive Order also directed ARB to develop new gasoline requirements
that eliminated the use of MTBE, which ARB adopted in December 1999
(known as Phase 3 Reformulated Gasoline Regulations). In July 2002, ARB
amended the Phase 3 gasoline regulations to postpone the prohibition of
the use of MTBE for one year, as directed by a second Executive Order
issued by the Governor in March 2002. The final deadline for
eliminating MTBE from gasoline in California was December 31, 2003.
Because certain areas of the State needed to rely on the benefits
of oxygenated fuels to ensure attainment and maintenance of the CO
NAAQS, ARB retained the wintertime oxygenated gasoline requirement in
the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura
and Imperial, but not in the ten planning areas.
Additionally, in adopting the 1998 CO Maintenance Plan, which
revised the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan, ARB committed to the following:
``* * * the Board directs ARB staff to review carbon monoxide air
quality data in the areas no longer subject to the wintertime oxygen
requirement; if violations are monitored in any of the areas, staff
will propose that appropriate action be taken regarding reinstatement
of the minimum wintertime oxygen content in gasoline previously
contained in section 2262.5, title 13, CCR, in the area at the
beginning of the following winter season * * *'' (ARB Resolution 98-52,
November 19, 1998; see page C-4 of the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan). ARB
revised the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan to demonstrate California's
ability to continue meeting the CO NAAQS without the wintertime
oxygenated gasoline program and submitted the amended plan (the ``1998
CO
[[Page 71782]]
Maintenance Plan'') to EPA for approval on December 10, 1998. EPA has
not taken action on this submittal. The current SIP revision submittal
to EPA supersedes the 1998 CO Maintenance Plan SIP revision submittal,
but includes a resubmission of ARB Resolution 98-52 and thereby
continues the State's commitment in the 1998 submittal to reintroduce
the wintertime oxygenated gasoline requirement if violations are
monitored. This prior commitment is referenced and reiterated in the
ARB resolution adopting the 2004 revisions to the CO maintenance plans:
``* * * in Resolution 98-52, the Board directed that `* * * if
violations are monitored in any of the areas, staff will propose that
appropriate action be taken regarding reinstatement of the minimum
wintertime oxygen content in gasoline previously contained in section
2262.5, title 13, CCR, in the area at the beginning of the following
winter season. * * *' '' (ARB Resolution 04-20, July 22, 2004, page 3.)
In the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, ARB brings forward the seven
contingency measures included in the 1996 Maintenance Plan, identifies
several additional regulatory measures that have already been adopted
and implemented as contingency measures (tighter emission standards for
cars, truck, buses, off-road equipment), and, as noted above, brings
forward the commitment from the 1998 Maintenance Plan SIP revision
submittal to reinstate the wintertime oxygenated gasoline requirement.
The CO emissions reductions associated with the seven contingency
measures adopted as part of the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan and the
additional contingency measures described in the 2004 CO Maintenance
Plan are accounted for in the inventories that provide the basis for
the maintenance demonstrations for the ten planning areas. Although we
find early implementation of contingency measures to be acceptable (see
EPA policy memorandum ``Early Implementation of Contingency Measures
for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' from G.T.
Helms to Air Branch Chiefs, August 13, 1993), we find that the
inclusion of the CO emissions reductions benefits from the various
contingency measures in the maintenance demonstrations for the ten
planning areas disqualifies them from serving as contingency measures
for the purposes of CAA section 175A(d).
However, we find that the commitment to reinstate the wintertime
oxygenated gasoline requirement, originally made in Resolution 98-52
and reaffirmed in Resolution 04-20, in the event that CO violations are
monitored provides a sufficient basis for us to determine that the 2004
CO Maintenance Plan meets the minimum contingency requirements under
section 175A(d) given the extent to which California's motor vehicle
control program will continue to provide CO emissions reductions in the
ten planning areas over and above those necessary for continued
attainment of the CO NAAQS.
E. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
Maintenance plan submittals must specify the maximum emissions of
transportation-related CO emissions allowed in the last year of the
maintenance period. The submittal must also demonstrate that these
emissions levels, when considered with emissions from all other
sources, are consistent with maintenance of the NAAQS. In order for us
to find these emissions levels or ``budgets'' adequate and approvable,
the submittal must meet the conformity adequacy provisions of 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4) and (5), and be approvable under all pertinent SIP
requirements.
The existing CO motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the
areas addressed in this notice derive from California's first
maintenance plan (i.e., the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan), which EPA
approved March 31, 1998 (63 FR 15305). The CAA requires that the first
installment of the maintenance plan cover at least ten years;
California's CO maintenance plan covered twelve years: 1998 to 2010.
The 1996 CO Maintenance Plan did not specifically identify a particular
year in which the MVEBs apply for transportation conformity purposes.
Applicable transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR
93.118(b)(2)(i)), however, require that ``Emissions must be less than
or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budget(s) established for the
last year of the maintenance plan * * *.'' This compels EPA to
interpret California's first CO maintenance plan as establishing MVEBs
for the final year of the first maintenance period, which is 2010. This
interpretation, however, does not preclude the State from revising the
2010 budgets.
In addition to establishing new MVEBs for the final year of the
second maintenance period (2018), the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan also
revises the current CO MVEBs. Page 14 of the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan
identifies 2003 and 2018 as budget years and states that ``These
emission budgets will apply to all subsequent analysis years * * *
including: Any interim year conformity analyses, the 2018 horizon year,
and years beyond 2018.'' EPA requested clarification from ARB because
the Agency was unsure whether the State had intended to set budgets for
every year after 2003. ARB submitted a letter on December 23, 2004
confirming ARB's intent to remove and entirely replace the emissions
budgets established by the first ten year plan with new budgets for
2003 and 2018.
Because the transportation conformity regulations (described above)
require States to demonstrate conformity to the last year of the
maintenance plan, EPA requested further clarification from ARB
concerning the MVEBs in the submitted 2004 CO Maintenance Plan for year
2010. On May 23, 2005, ARB submitted a letter to EPA clarifying their
intent to update the MVEBs from the first maintenance plan by setting
new, more stringent MVEBs starting in 2003. These MVEBs would also
apply for 2010 and 2018. The letter included a table showing the MVEBs
and applicable budget years (see Table 4).
Table 4.--Proposed On-Road Motor Vehicle CO Emission Budgets
[Winter seasonal emissions in tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission budget
CO maintenance area Area included in inventory --------------------------
2003 2010 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bakersfield................................... Western Kern County.................. 180 180 180
Chico......................................... Butte County......................... 80 80 80
Fresno........................................ Fresno County........................ 240 240 240
Lake Tahoe North Shore........................ Eastern Placer County................ 11 11 11
Lake Tahoe South Shore........................ Eastern El Dorado County............. 19 19 19
Modesto....................................... Stanislaus County.................... 130 130 130
[[Page 71783]]
Sacramento.................................... Sacramento County, Yolo County, 420 420 420
Western Placer County.
San Diego..................................... San Diego County..................... 730 730 730
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose................ San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin..... 1850 1850 1850
Stockton...................................... San Joaquin County................... 170 170 170
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In setting MVEBs, States generally use motor vehicle emission
inventories. California took this approach, for example, in the 1996 CO
Maintenance Plan. As Table 5 illustrates, motor vehicle emissions are
expected to fall to comparatively low levels by 2018. California need
not, however, cap MVEBs at projected motor vehicle emissions levels.
Because overall projected levels of emissions from all sources (as
demonstrated in Table 2) are expected to be less than the levels
necessary to maintain the CO NAAQS, California has a ``safety margin''
that the State may use to set MVEBs at a higher level. As long as
emissions from all sources are lower than needed to provide for
continued maintenance, the State may allocate additional emissions to
the MVEBs (see 40 CFR 93.124).
Table 5.--On-Road Motor Vehicle CO Emission Inventory
[Winter seasonal emissions in tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO maintenance area Area included in inventory 1993 2003 2010 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bakersfield.............................. Western Kern County.............. 347 177 112 66
Chico.................................... Butte County..................... 138 75 46 23
Fresno................................... Fresno County.................... 450 236 141 77
Lake Tahoe North Shore Lake.............. Eastern Placer County............ 18 10 7 4
Tahoe South Shore........................ Eastern El Dorado County......... 32 18 13 7
Modesto.................................. Stanislaus County................ 246 126 74 42
Sacramento............................... Sacramento County, Yolo County, 857 410 244 96
Western Placer County.
San Diego................................ San Diego County................. 1,472 728 457 249
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose........... San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. 3,314 1,840 979 563
Stockton................................. San Joaquin County............... 326 162 97 55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ARB, 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, page 13.
In the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan, ARB's proposed MVEBs (Table 4,
above) meet the safety margin test. Take, for example, Fresno, which
attained the CO NAAQS in 1993 with a CO wintertime emissions level of
627 tons per day. By 2018, ARB predicts that Fresno's emissions will be
244 tons per day of CO (77 from motor vehicles, 167 from all other
sources) [see Table 6]. This provides a safety margin of 383 tons per
day. By setting the MVEB for Fresno at 240 tons per day, ARB allocates
some of the safety margin (163 tons per day) to the MVEB, while still
leaving a large margin between emissions levels from all sources,
including motor vehicles and related safety margin (i.e., 220 tons per
day), and the emissions level that allows for continued maintenance of
the NAAQS (627 tons per day).
Table 6.--Example of How ARB Can Allocate Emissions to MVEBs for Fresno
Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno urbanized area 2018 emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory......... 77
Projected Emissions from Other Sources.............. 167
Total Projected Emissions........................... 244
Allowable emissions\1\.............................. 627
Emissions available to allocate to MVEB............. 383
Proposed MVEB (See Table 4, above).................. 240
Difference b/w MVEB and Projected MV emissions...... 163
Remaining Unallocated Safety Margin................. 220
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on the revised inventory for year in which Fresno attained the
standard (1993).
Our detailed evaluation of the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan and related
MVEBs under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5) is provided in section IV of
this notice. Based on that evaluation and the discussion provided
above, we approve the CO MVEBs for each of the ten planning areas as
set forth in the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan and clarified by ARB in its
letter dated May 23, 2005 because the plan and budgets meet the
requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5) and because we find that
ARB has met all statutory requirements for submittals of maintenance
plans under sections 110 and part D of the Act.
In the submittal letter dated November 8, 2004, ARB requested that
EPA limit the duration of our approval of the MVEBs in the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan to last only until the
[[Page 71784]]
effective date of future EPA adequacy findings for replacement budgets.
This would mean that if ARB decided to amend the CO MVEBs sometime in
the future, then the new MVEBs would become effective as soon as EPA
determined adequacy, rather than after comprehensive rulemaking (which
is a longer process). ARB had made a similar request, and EPA granted
it, in connection with the MVEBs in the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan (see
67 FR 46618, at 46620, November 15, 2002). That request, however, was
accompanied with significant documentation that demonstrated why
limiting the duration of our approval provided an advantage to air
quality and public health protection. With the current request,
however, ARB has not provided any supporting documentation. We note
that ARB's request to limit the duration of the approvals of the MVEBs
was contained only in the submittal letter and is not, therefore,
considered a part of the maintenance plan itself. Therefore, our denial
of ARB's request does not affect our approval of the plan or the
budgets contained therein.
IV. Adequacy Finding for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
In this notice, we announce our finding that the motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) in the submitted 2004 Revision to the
California State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide, Updated
Maintenance Plan for Ten Federal Planning Areas (adopted by ARB on July
22, 2004) (``2004 CO Maintenance Plan'') are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes. As a result of this finding, the
various metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) with jurisdictions
in the ten planning areas and the U.S. Department of Transportation
must use the CO MVEBs from the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan for future
conformity determinations. We are also announcing this finding on our
conformity Web site: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/trasp/conform/adequate.htm
(once there, click on the ``What SIP submissions has EPA already found
adequate or inadequate?'' button).
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Our transportation conformity rule (codified in 40 CFR part 93, subpart
A) requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform
to SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining
whether or not they do. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation
activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air
quality standards.
On March 2, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit issued a decision in Environmental Defense Fund v.
Environmental Protection Agency, No. 97-1637, that we must make an
affirmative determination that the submitted MVEBs contained in SIPs
are adequate before they are used to determine the conformity of
Transportation Improvement Programs or Long Range Transportation Plans.
In response to the court decision, we are making any submitted SIP
revision containing a control strategy or maintenance plan available
for public comment and responding to those comments before announcing
our adequacy determination. The conformity rule was recently changed to
reflect the procedures we have been using since the court decision. See
69 FR 40004 (July 1, 2004) and related correction notice at 69 FR 43325
(July 20, 2004).
ARB submitted the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan to EPA by letter dated
November 8, 2004, and we received this plan on November 12, 2004. The
plan identifies CO MVEBs (calculated as winter seasonal emissions in
tons per day) for each of the ten planning areas for years 2003 and
2018.
We announced receipt of the plan on the Internet and requested
public comment by December 27, 2004. We requested clarification from
ARB because we were unsure whether ARB had intended to set budgets for
every year after 2003. ARB submitted a letter on December 23, 2004
explaining ARB's intent to replace the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan budgets
with new budgets for 2003 and 2018. Subsequently, we extended the
comment period until February 10, 2004, although we had not received
any comments in response to our Internet posting on December 27, 2004.
We did not receive any comments during the extended comment period
either.
Because the transportation conformity regulations require States to
demonstrate conformity to the last year of the maintenance plan, EPA
requested further clarification from ARB on the status of the MVEBs for
2010 (the last year of the EPA-approved 1996 CO Maintenance Plan). On
May 23, 2005, ARB submitted a letter to EPA indicating that their
intent was to update the MVEBs from the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan by
setting new, more stringent MVEBs starting in 2003. These new MVEBs
would apply to 2003, 2010 and 2018. Table 4, above, shows the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan MVEBs for 2003, 2010 (the last year of the 1996 CO
Maintenance Plan), and 2018 (the last year of the 2004 CO Maintenance
Plan).
The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's MVEBs are
adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)
and (5). The following paragraphs provide our review of ARB's 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan SIP submittal against our adequacy criteria and, based
on that review, we conclude that all of the criteria have been met and
that the MVEBs in the submitted 2004 CO Maintenance Plan are adequate
for transportation conformity purposes.
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i), we review a submitted plan to
determine whether the plan was endorsed by the Governor (or designee)
and was subject to a public hearing. The transmittal letter for the
submitted 2004 CO Maintenance Plan was signed by Catherine Witherspoon,
Executive Officer, ARB, the Governor's designee for CAA SIP purposes.
ARB Resolution 04-20, included as enclosure 2 of the SIP submittal,
provides evidence of adoption and legal authority. Enclosure 3 of the
SIP submittal contains documentation of a public hearing on the 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan that was held on July 22, 2004. As such, the submitted
plan meets the criterion under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i).
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii), we review a submitted plan to
determine whether the plan was developed through consultation with
Federal, State and local agencies and whether full implementation plan
documentation was provided to EPA and EPA's stated concerns, if any,
were addressed. Consultation for development of this plan largely
consisted of public hearing notices that were published in newspapers
of general circulation in each of the ten planning areas. Given the
nature of this subsequent maintenance plan submittal, which includes no
new control measures but simply shifts one control measure (the
wintertime oxygenated gasoline requirement) from active to contingent
status, and updates a previous plan to reflect better emission
estimates (based on improved calculation methods and updated source
type and activity data) and to extend the maintenance demonstrations
further into the future, such limited consultation is sufficient for
the purposes of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii).
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), we review a submitted plan to
determine whether the MVEBs are clearly identified and precisely
quantified. The 2004 CO Maintenance Plan clearly identifies and
precisely quantifies the CO MVEBs for each of the ten planning
[[Page 71785]]
area on pages 13 through 17 of the plan, thereby meeting the adequacy
criterion under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii).
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv), we review a submitted plan to
determine whether the MVEBs, when considered together with all other
emissions sources, is consistent with applicable requirements for
reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance (whichever is
relevant to a given SIP submission). The 2004 CO Maintenance Plan shows
how the CO MVEBs and related safety margins are consistent with
continued maintenance of the CO NAAQS in each of the ten planning areas
through 2018 (see pages 13 through 17 of the plan). In particular,
Table 12 on page 17 of the maintenance plan shows the extent to which
maximum potential 2018 emissions (i.e., including the budget safety
margins) fall below emissions calculated for the 1993 attainment year.
Thus, the submitted plan meets this criterion for adequacy.
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v), we review a submitted plan to
determine whether the MVEBs are consistent with and clearly related to
the emissions inventory and the control measures in the submitted
control strategy plan or maintenance plan. The 2004 CO Maintenance Plan
contains no new measures but the budgets appropriately reflect the
State's adopted emissions standards, fuel regulations (including repeal
of the wintertime oxygenated gasoline requirements), and the vehicle
inspection and maintenance program, as applicable in each of the ten
planning areas. Thus, the submitted plan meets this criterion for
adequacy.
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(vi), we review a submitted plan to
determine whether revisions to previously submitted plans explain and
document any changes to previously submitted budgets and control
measures; impacts on point and area source emissions; any changes to
established safety margins; and reasons for the changes (including the
basis for any changes related to emissions factors or estimates of
vehicle miles traveled). The 2004 CO Maintenance Plan explains and
documents the various changes that have been made to the CO emissions
inventories, motor vehicle emissions budgets, safety margins, and
control measures, including updates to the emissions factor model
(EMFAC2002 for the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan versus EMFAC7F for the 1996
CO Maintenance Plan), updates to the travel activity data from the
local transportation agencies, and the shift of the wintertime
oxygenated gasoline requirements from active to contingent status.
Thus, the submitted plan meets this criterion for adequacy.
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(5), we review the State's compilation of
public comments and response to comments that are required to be
submitted with any SIP revision. Enclosure 4 of the SIP submittal
contains one comment letter that was received on the proposed 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan. This comment letter supported ARB approval of the
proposed plan. Enclosure 6 of the SIP submittal contains minutes from
the July 22, 2004 public hearing. No further comments on the plan were
submitted on the proposed plan at the public hearing. Thus, the
submitted plan meets this criterion for adequacy.
Therefore, we find the CO MVEBs contained in the submitted 2004 CO
Maintenance Plan to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes.
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1), motor vehicle emissions budgets in submitted
plans do not supersede the motor vehicle emissions budgets in approved
plans for the same CAA requirement and the period of years addressed by
the previously approved implementation plan, unless EPA specifies
otherwise in its approval of a SIP. See 69 FR 40004, at 40078 (July 1,
2004). In this instance, the submitted plan (the 2004 CO Maintenance
Plan) is a maintenance plan that establishes MVEBs that are intended to
supersede previously approved budgets from an earlier maintenance plan
(the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan) for year 2010, the out year of the 1996
plan. However, in a final rule published on November 15, 2002, we
limited the duration of our approvals of the MVEBs in the 1996 CO
Maintenance Plan to last only until the effective date of our adequacy
finding for new budgets that replace the existing approved budgets for
the same pollutant, CAA requirement, and year. See 67 FR 69139
(November 15, 2002). Thus, upon the effective date of this adequacy
finding, the MVEBs in the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan will supersede the
previously-approved CO MVEBs from the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan.
The effective date for our adequacy finding will coincide with the
effective date for our approval of the budgets as part of our overall
approval of the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan as a SIP revision if we do not
withdraw this direct final rule in response to receipt of adverse
comments. If we receive adverse comments on this direct final action,
we will withdraw the final rule as it relates to the approval of the
2004 CO Maintenance Plan (and budgets), but the adequacy determination
will remain in effect until we either make a subsequent inadequacy
determination or take subsequent final action to approve or disapprove
the plan.
V. Technical Correction
In 1996, ARB submitted the 1996 CO Maintenance Plan covering the
ten planning areas and requested they be redesignated to attainment for
the CO NAAQS. On March 31, 1998, EPA approved the 1996 Plan as a
revision to the California SIP and redesignated the ten planning areas
to attainment effective June 1, 1998 (63 FR 15305). To codify this
rulemaking, we amended the table in 40 CFR part 81, section 305 (40 CFR
81.305), that lists the designations for air quality planning areas in
California, but in doing so, we incorrectly identified April 30, 1998
as the effective date for redesignation of the ten planning areas to
attainment for CO. The correct date is June 1, 1998. In addition, in
our March 31, 1998 final rule, we inadvertently deleted from the
California-Carbon Monoxide table the detailed descriptions of three of
the ten planning areas: the Lake Tahoe North Shore Area, the Lake Tahoe
South Shore Area, and the San Diego Area.
Section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act provides, ``Whenever the
Administrator determines that the Administrator's action approving,
disapproving, or promulgating any plan or plan revision (or part
thereof), area designation, redesignation, classification, or
reclassification was in error, the Administrator may in the same manner
as the approval, disapproval, or promulgation revise such action as
appropriate without requiring any further submission from the State.
Such determination and the basis thereof shall be provided to the State
and public.'' Under the authority vested in EPA under section 110(k)(6)
of the Act, we are taking direct final action to amend the California-
Carbon Monoxide table in 40 CFR 81.305 by changing the effective date
for redesignation from April 30, 1998 to June 1, 1998 for each of the
ten areas addressed in this notice and by re-codifying the previous
detailed descriptions of the Lake Tahoe North Shore, Lake Tahoe South
Shore, and San Diego Areas.
VI. EPA's Final Action
Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is approving as a revision
to the California SIP the 2004 Revision to the California State
Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide, Updated Maintenance Plan for
Ten Federal Planning Areas (``2004 CO Maintenance Plan''), as adopted
by ARB on July 22, 2004 and submitted by ARB to EPA on November 8,
2004.
[[Page 71786]]
In so doing, EPA has determined t